Re: [LAD] a *simple* ring buffer, comments pls?

On Friday 08 July 2011 20:12:08 Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On Friday, July 08, 2011 12:17:34 pm Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:21:55AM -0400, Paul Davis
>
> wrote:
> > > the one wrinkle in this is that in theory a compiler
> > > could so completely reorder instructions that even the
> > > basic assumptions that make the single
> > > reader/single-writer ringbuffer safe would break down.
> >
> > AFAIK nothing fatal can happen if the variables involved
> > are declared volatile. A compiler is not allowed to
> > omit, repeat, or re-order instructions involving them.
>
> Take for instance jack_ringbuffer_read(), which has this
> line:
>
> rb->read_ptr = (rb->read_ptr + n) & rb->size_mask;
>
> There's a remote possibility that the compiler could
> optimize this as:
>
> rb->read_ptr += n;
> rb->read_ptr &= rb->size_mask;
>
> ...and this would break the ringbuffer. I don't know if the
> `volatile` keyword prevents this or not.

What would happen? The ringbuffer in jack is explicitely only for one-reader-
one-writer. So in this optimization, the only participant using the read_ptr
to do something possibly bad, is the reading participant which is currently
executing this code.
The writing participant can access that read_ptr for example to check the
available space. But as the docs state (afair), the available sizes for
read/write are not strict functions, the only thing that counts is if you have
space for reading/writing. And that is fulfilled if read_ptr!=write_ptr...

Have fun,

Arnold

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev