linuxaudio.org

On 11 July 2011 21:32, James Morris  wrote:

quoted text
> 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@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev