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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <241506096.21688.1565977319832.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908161505400.1525-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908161505400.1525-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:44:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQrh42N5bYMmQJCFb6xa0nwXH8jmZMEAnGVBMjGF8wR1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:19 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

I am also more on the side of using *_ONCE. To me, by principal, I
would be willing to convert any concurrent plain access using _ONCE,
just so we don't have to worry about it now or in the future and also
documents the access.

Perhaps the commit message can be reworded to mention that the _ONCE
is an additional clean up for safe access.

thanks,

 - Joel