Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:32:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@kernel.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
        "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle
 injection framework
Message-ID: <20180607093201.GL12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1528190208-22915-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <20180606122357.GN12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <22f5cf0b-049e-7938-55f6-4b4b154f8389@linaro.org>
 <20180606150203.GE12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <ea347237-7cef-095a-5ddb-19c181d10c23@linaro.org>
 <20180607083229.GJ12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180607084251.rv2tg3kgz4aohlpd@vireshk-i7>
 <9996fb40-c7aa-db61-5445-52c146f44d85@linaro.org>
 <20180607084921.toctrooftl6y7kkx@vireshk-i7>
 <d2b8c964-ea0f-624c-a178-721537893541@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d2b8c964-ea0f-624c-a178-721537893541@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:09:13AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/06/2018 10:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 07-06-18, 10:46, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Yes, correct.
> >>
> >> But if we don't care about who wins to store to value, is there a risk
> >> of scramble variable if we just assign a value ?
> > 
> > Normally no, as the compiler wouldn't screw it up badly. But there is no rule
> > which stops the compiler from doing this:
> > 
> > idle_duration_ms = 5;
> > idle_duration_ms = -5;
> > idle_duration_ms = 0;
> > idle_duration_ms = <real-value-we-want-to-write>;
> > 
> > So we *must* use READ/WRITE_ONCE() to make sure garbage values aren't seen by
> > readers.
> 
> Ok understood. Why would a compiler do this kind of things ?

I think the above can happen when the compiler uses the variable as a
scratch pad -- very rare I would say.

In general a compiler needs to proof that doing this makes no observable
difference ("as-if" rule). And since it is a regular variable it can
assume data-race-free and do the above (or something like that). Because
if there is a data-race it is UB and it can still do whatever it
pleases.

And here I think the point is that regular variables are considered only
in the context of a single linear execution context. Locks are assumed
to bound observability.

And here the "volatile" and "_atomic" type specifiers again tell the
compiler something 'special' is going on and you should not muck with
things.