Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio/vringh: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
References: <1479983114-17190-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20161124222357-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20161125112203.GA26611@leverpostej>
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
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:33:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161125112203.GA26611@leverpostej>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <32dfca07-59f3-b75a-3154-cf6b6c8538f0@de.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2144
Lines: 54

On 11/25/2016 12:22 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.

My first version had this warning, but it was removed later on as requested
by Linus

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02670.html
---snip---

Get rid of the f*cking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends.

They are about - wait for it - "reading a value once".

Note how it doesn't say ANYTHING about "atomic" or anything like that.
It's about reading *ONCE*.

---snip---