The problem without volatile
Let's assume that volatile is omitted from the data array. Then the C compiler
and the CPU do not know that its elements change outside the program-flow. Some
things that could happen then:
The whole array might be loaded into the cache when myTask() is called for
the first time. The array might stay in the cache forever and is never
updated from the "main" memory again. This issue is more pressing on multi-core
CPUs if myTask() is bound to a single core, for example.
If myTask() is inlined into the parent function, the compiler might decide
to hoist loads outside of the loop even to a point where the DMA transfer
has not been completed.
The compiler might even be able to determine that no write happens to
memoryBuffer and assume that the array elements stay at 0 all the time
(which would again trigger a lot of optimizations). This could happen if
the program was rather small and all the code is visible to the compiler
at once (or LTO is used).
Remember: After all the compiler does not know anything about the DMA
peripheral and that it is writing "unexpectedly and wildly into memory"
(from a compiler perspective).
If the compiler is dumb/conservative and the CPU not very sophisticated (single core, no out-of-order execution), the code might even work without the volatile declaration. But it also might not...
The problem with volatile
Making
the whole array volatile is often a pessimisation. For speed reasons you
probably want to unroll the loop. So instead of loading from the
array and incrementing the index alternatingly such as
load memoryBuffer[m]
m += 1;
load memoryBuffer[m]
m += 1;
load memoryBuffer[m]
m += 1;
load memoryBuffer[m]
m += 1;
it can be faster to load multiple elements at once and increment the index
in larger steps such as
load memoryBuffer[m]
load memoryBuffer[m + 1]
load memoryBuffer[m + 2]
load memoryBuffer[m + 3]
m += 4;
This is especially true, if the loads can be fused together (e.g. to perform
one 32-bit load instead of two 16-bit loads). Further you want the
compiler to use SIMD instruction to process multiple array elements with
a single instruction.
These optimizations are often prevented if the load happens from
volatile memory because compilers are usually very conservative with
load/store reordering around volatile memory accesses.
Again the behavior differs between compiler vendors (e.g. MSVC vs GCC).
Possible solution 1: fences
So you would like to make the array non-volatile but add a hint for the compiler/CPU saying "when you see this line (execute this statement), flush the cache and reload the array from memory". In C11 you could insert an atomic_thread_fence at the beginning of myTask(). Such fences prevent the re-ordering of loads/stores across them.
Since we do not have a C11 compiler, we use intrinsics for this task. The ARMCC compiler has a __dmb() intrinsic (data memory barrier). For GCC you may want to look at __sync_synchronize() (doc).
Possible solution 2: atomic variable holding the buffer state
We use the following pattern a lot in our codebase (e.g. when reading data from
SPI via DMA and calling a function to analyze it): The buffer is declared as
plain array (no volatile) and an atomic flag is added to each buffer, which
is set when the DMA transfer has finished. The code looks something
like this:
typedef struct Buffer
{
uint16_t data[10][20];
// Flag indicating if the buffer has been filled. Only use atomic instructions on it!
int filled;
// C11: atomic_int filled;
// C++: std::atomic_bool filled{false};
} Buffer_t;
Buffer_t buffers[2];
Buffer_t* volatile currentDmaBuffer; // using volatile here because I'm lazy
void setupDMA(void)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
{
int bufferFilled;
// Atomically load the flag.
bufferFilled = __sync_fetch_and_or(&buffers[i].filled, 0);
// C11: bufferFilled = atomic_load(&buffers[i].filled);
// C++: bufferFilled = buffers[i].filled;
if (!bufferFilled)
{
currentDmaBuffer = &buffers[i];
... configure DMA to write to buffers[i].data and start it
}
}
// If you end up here, there is no free buffer available because the
// data processing takes too long.
}
void DMA_done_IRQHandler(void)
{
// ... stop DMA if needed
// Atomically set the flag indicating that the buffer has been filled.
__sync_fetch_and_or(¤tDmaBuffer->filled, 1);
// C11: atomic_store(¤tDmaBuffer->filled, 1);
// C++: currentDmaBuffer->filled = true;
currentDmaBuffer = 0;
// ... possibly start another DMA transfer ...
}
void myTask(Buffer_t* buffer)
{
for (uint8_t n=0; n<10; n++)
for (uint8_t m=0; m<20; m++)
foo(buffer->data[n][m]);
// Reset the flag atomically.
__sync_fetch_and_and(&buffer->filled, 0);
// C11: atomic_store(&buffer->filled, 0);
// C++: buffer->filled = false;
}
void waitForData(void)
{
// ... see setupDma(void) ...
}
The advantage of pairing the buffers with an atomic is that you are able to detect when the processing is too slow meaning that you have to buffer more,
make the incoming data slower or the processing code faster or whatever is
sufficient in your case.
Possible solution 3: OS support
If you have an (embedded) OS, you might resort to other patterns instead of using volatile arrays. The OS we use features memory pools and queues. The latter can be filled from a thread or an interrupt and a thread can block on
the queue until it is non-empty. The pattern looks a bit like this:
MemoryPool pool; // A pool to acquire DMA buffers.
Queue bufferQueue; // A queue for pointers to buffers filled by the DMA.
void* volatile currentBuffer; // The buffer currently filled by the DMA.
void setupDMA(void)
{
currentBuffer = MemoryPool_Allocate(&pool, 20 * 10 * sizeof(uint16_t));
// ... make the DMA write to currentBuffer
}
void DMA_done_IRQHandler(void)
{
// ... stop DMA if needed
Queue_Post(&bufferQueue, currentBuffer);
currentBuffer = 0;
}
void myTask(void)
{
void* buffer = Queue_Wait(&bufferQueue);
[... work with buffer ...]
MemoryPool_Deallocate(&pool, buffer);
}
This is probably the easiest approach to implement but only if you have an OS
and if portability is not an issue.
