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

On 11 July 2011 21:32, James Morris <jwm.art.net@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> I've ended up going back to Fons's pragmatism. If
> non-blocking/lock-free programming is so impossibly difficult,
> requiring intimate hardware knowledge of numerous different
> architectures then there's only one solution available to people like
> me, and that's to code for AMD64/Intel and use the existing ringbuffer
> implementations.

Perhaps the pragmatic solution is to _lock_ the shared buffer?

I'm not at all sound on this subject, but I wouldn't be surprised if
Dan was right that memory ordering guarantees on the read/write index
variables might still leave the data that is just "copied into the
buffer" exposed to cache coherency problems.

I know taking locks in a RT process is deeply frowned upon around
here, but a critical section juts across the code used to update the
buffer and read back from it -- with an accompanying guarantee of
actually getting the right data out again -- might not be such a bad
tradeoff these days as we'd be inclined to think?

Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jul 12 00:15:05 2011