Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 11 May 2018 10:32:42 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@gmail.com>
Cc:     paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, stefani@seibold.net,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is read barrier missed in kfifo?
Message-ID: <20180511083242.GJ12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <5382d3a8-08e0-5429-0cd3-36f9c69197e1@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5382d3a8-08e0-5429-0cd3-36f9c69197e1@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:25:18PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Currently, there is no read barrier between reading the index
> (kfifo.in) and fetching the real data from the fifo.
> 
> I am afraid that will cause the vfifo is observed as not empty
> however the data is not actually ready for read. Right?

That code is decidedly dodgy indeed. I can only see smp_wmb() but no
matching barriers at all -- therefore the code is almost certainly as
good as not having any barriers at all.

I would suggest you try and convert the code to smp_store_release() and
smp_load_acquire() while you're at it.