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:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:54:07 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
Cc:     Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: pids: use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE for pids->limit
 operations
Message-ID: <20191016155407.GP18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20191012010539.6131-1-cyphar@cyphar.com>
 <20191014154136.GF18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191014155931.jl7idjebhqxb3ck3@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
 <20191014163307.GG18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191016083218.ttsaqnxpjh5i5bgv@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
 <20191016142756.GN18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <20191016152946.34j5x45ko5auhv3g@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
 <20191016153520.zet5mn5xsygig4xc@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191016153520.zet5mn5xsygig4xc@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:35:20AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > Sure, I will switch it to use atomic64_read() and atomic64_set() instead
> > if that's what you'd prefer. Though I will mention that on quite a few
> > architectures atomic64_read() is defined as:
> > 
> >   #define atomic64_read(v)        READ_ONCE((v)->counter)
> 
> Though I guess that's because on those architectures it turns out that
> READ_ONCE is properly atomic?

Oh yeah, on archs where 64bit accesses are atomic, READ_ONCE() /
WRITE_ONCE() would work here.  If the limit variable were ulong
instead of an explicit 64bit variable, RW ONCE would work too as ulong
accesses are atomic on all archs IIRC.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun