lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH rcu 11/18] rcu: Mark lockless ->qsmask read in rcu_check_boost_fail()
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:21:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Accesses to ->qsmask are normally protected by ->lock, but there is an
> exception in the diagnostic code in rcu_check_boost_fail(). This commit
> therefore applies data_race() to this access to avoid KCSAN complaining
> about the C-language writes protected by ->lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> index 42847caa3909b..6dd6c9aa3f757 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h
> @@ -766,7 +766,7 @@ bool rcu_check_boost_fail(unsigned long gp_state, int *cpup)
>
> rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp) {
> if (!cpup) {
> - if (READ_ONCE(rnp->qsmask)) {
> + if (data_race(READ_ONCE(rnp->qsmask))) {

If the write sides allow normal writes, i.e. allowing store tearing, the
READ_ONCE() here could read incomplete writes, which could be anything
basically? And we get the same result if we remove the READ_ONCE(),
don't we? Yes, I know, without the READ_ONCE(), compilers can do
anything to optimize on rnp->qsmask, but the end result is same or
similar to reading incomplete writes (which is also a result by compiler
optimization). So if we mark something as data_race(), **in theory**, it
makes no difference with or without the READ_ONCE(), so I think maybe we
can remove the READ_ONCE() here?

Regards,
Boqun

> return false;
> } else {
> if (READ_ONCE(rnp->gp_tasks))
> --
> 2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-29 10:56    [W:0.257 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site