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: <CANpmjNMvTbMJa+NmfD286vGVNQrxAnsujQZqaodw0VVUYdNjPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1911111030410.12295-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
 <CAHk-=wjp6yR-gBNYXPzrHQHq+wX_t6WfwrF_S3EEUq9ccz3vng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+OBZOq-q4GWAxKVRau6nHYMo3v4y-c1vUb_O8nvra1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wg6Zaf09i0XNgCmOzKKWnoAPMfA7WX9OY1Ow1YtF0ZP3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+hRhweL2N=r1chMpWKU2ue8fiQO=dLxGs9sgLFbgHEWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89iJiuOkKc2AVmccM8z9e_d4zbV61K-3z49ao1UwRDdFiHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgkwBjQWyDQi8mu06DXr_v_4zui+33fk3eK89rPof5b+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+x7Yxjxr4Fdaow-51-A-oBK3MqTscbQ4VXQuk4pX9aCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=whRQuSrstW+cwNmUdLNwkZsKsXuie_1uTqJeKjMBWmr6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whRQuSrstW+cwNmUdLNwkZsKsXuie_1uTqJeKjMBWmr6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:46:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whWNkk7vCQr7LLshcB6B_=ikmpMXQ7RtO2FyDx-Np_UKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KCSAN: data-race in __alloc_file / __alloc_file
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+3ef049d50587836c0606@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, maybe we could have some model for marking "this is statistics,
> doesn't need to be exact".

Side note: that marking MUST NOT be "READ_ONCE + WRITE_ONCE", because
that makes gcc create horrible code, and only makes the race worse.

At least with a regular add, it might stay as a single r-m-w
instruction on architectures that have that, and makes the quality of
the statistics slightly better (no preemption etc).

So that's an excellent example of where changing code to use
WRITE_ONCE actually makes the code objectively worse in practice -
even if it might be the same in theory.

                Linus