11 Jul
2011
11 Jul
'11
10:50 p.m.
On 11 July 2011 21:32, James Morris <jwm.art.net(a)gmail.com> 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