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:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
cc:     rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
In-Reply-To: <241506096.21688.1565977319832.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908161505400.1525-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> If you choose not to use READ_ONCE(), then the "load tearing" issue can
> cause similar spurious 1 -> 0 -> 1 transitions near 16-bit counter
> overflow as described above. The "Invented load" also becomes an issue,
> because the compiler could use the loaded value for a branch, and re-load
> that value between two branches which are expected to use the same value,
> effectively generating a corrupted state.
> 
> I think we need a statement about whether READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE should
> be used in this kind of situation, or if we are fine dealing with the
> awkward compiler side-effects when they will occur.

The only real downside (apart from readability) of READ_ONCE and
WRITE_ONCE is that they prevent the compiler from optimizing accesses
to the location being read or written.  But if you're just doing a
single access in each place, not multiple accesses, then there's
nothing to optimize anyway.  So there's no real reason not to use
READ_ONCE or WRITE_ONCE.

Alan Stern