Yes, we can do something like that. However I think put_qnode() needs toThe increment does *not* have to be atomic.
use atomic dec as well. As a result, we will need 2 additional atomic
operations per slowpath invocation. The code may look simpler, but I
don't think it will be faster than what I am currently doing as the
cases where the used flag is set will be relatively rare.
First of all, note that the only reader that matters is a local interrupt;
other processors never access the variable at all, so what they see
is irrelevant.
"Okay, so I use a non-atomic RMW instruction; what about non-x86
processors without op-to-memory?"
Well, they're okay, too. The only requriement is that the write to
qna->cnt must be visible to the local processor (barrier()) before the
qna->nodes[] slot is used.
Remember, a local interrupt may use a slot temporarily, but will always
return qna->cnt to its original value before returning. So there's
nothing wrong with
- Load qna->cnt to register
- Increment register
- Store register to qna->cnt
Because an interrupt, although it may temporarily modify qna->cnt, will
restore it before returning so this code will never see any modification.
Just like using the stack below the %rsp, the only requirement is to
ensure that the qna->cnt increment is visble *to the local processor's
interrupt handler* before actually using the slot.
The effect of the interrupt handler is that it may corrupt, at any
time and without warning, any slot not marked in use via qna->cnt.
But that's not a difficult thing to deal with, and does *not* require
atomic operations.