Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:22:03 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, dbueso@suse.de,
        dvyukov@google.com, jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio/vringh: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
Message-ID: <20161125112203.GA26611@leverpostej>
References: <1479983114-17190-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20161124222357-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161124222357-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1682
Lines: 41

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:36:58PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:25:11AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > For several reasons, it would be beneficial to kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
> > tree-wide, in favour of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). These work with aggregate types,
> > more obviously document their intended behaviour, and are necessary for tools
> > like KTSAN to work correctly (as otherwise reads and writes cannot be
> > instrumented separately).
> > 
> > While it's possible to script the bulk of this tree-wide conversion, some cases
> > such as the virtio code, require some manual intervention. This series moves
> > the virtio and vringh code over to {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), in the process fixing a
> > bug in the virtio headers.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> 
> I don't have a problem with this specific patchset.

Good to hear. :)

Does that mean you're happy to queue these patches? Or would you prefer
a new posting at some later point, with ack/review tags accumulated?

> Though I really question the whole _ONCE APIs esp with
> aggregate types - these seem to generate a memcpy and
> an 8-byte read/writes sometimes, and I'm pretty sure this simply
> can't be read/written at once on all architectures.

Yes, in cases where the access is larger than the machine can perform in
a single access, this will result in a memcpy.

My understanding is that this has always been the case with
ACCESS_ONCE(), where multiple accesses were silently/implicitly
generated by the compiler.

We could add some compile-time warnings for those cases. I'm not sure if
there's a reason we avoided doing that so far; perhaps Christian has a
some idea.

Thanks,
Mark.