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:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:01:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
Message-ID: <20190820140116.GT2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <241506096.21688.1565977319832.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1908161505400.1525-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <CAEXW_YQrh42N5bYMmQJCFb6xa0nwXH8jmZMEAnGVBMjGF8wR1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908162245440.1923@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190816205740.GF10481@google.com>
 <3c0cb8a2-eba2-7bea-8523-b948253a6804@arm.com>
 <CAHk-=wi_KeD1M-_-_SU_H92vJ-yNkDnAGhAS=RR1yNNGWKW+aA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190817045217.GZ28441@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190817045217.GZ28441@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:52:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 03:57:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > We add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE annotations when they make sense. Not
> > because of some theoretical "compiler is free to do garbage"
> > arguments. If such garbage happens, we need to fix the compiler, the
> > same way we already do with
> > 
> >   -fno-strict-aliasing
> 
> Yeah, the compete-with-FORTRAN stuff.  :-/
> 
> There is some work going on in the C committee on this, where the
> theorists would like to restrict strict-alias based optimizations to
> enable better analysis tooling.  And no, although the theorists are
> pushing in the direction we would like them to, as far as I can see
> they are not pushing as far as we would like.  But it might be that
> -fno-strict-aliasing needs some upgrades as well.  I expect to learn
> more at the next meeting in a few months.
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2364.pdf
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2363.pdf
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2362.pdf

We really should get the compiler folks to give us a
-fno-pointer-provenance. Waiting on the standards committee to get their
act together seems unlikely, esp. given that some people actually seem
to _want_ this nonsense :/