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, 29 Jan 2020 11:26:02 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/osq_lock: fix a data race in osq_wait_next
Message-ID: <20200129192602.GA2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200122165938.GA16974@willie-the-truck>
 <A5114711-B8DE-48DA-AFD0-62128AC08270@lca.pw>
 <20200122223851.GA45602@google.com>
 <A90E2B85-77CB-4743-AEC3-90D7836C4D47@lca.pw>
 <20200123093905.GU14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <E722E6E0-26CB-440F-98D7-D182B57D1F43@lca.pw>
 <CANpmjNNo6yW-y-Af7JgvWi3t==+=02hE4-pFU4OiH8yvbT3Byg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200128165655.GM14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200129002253.GT2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200129184935.GU14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200129184935.GU14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 07:49:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:22:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 05:56:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 12:46:26PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Marco, any thought on improving KCSAN for this to reduce the false
> > > > > positives?
> > > > 
> > > > Define 'false positive'.
> > > 
> > > I'll use it where the code as written is correct while the tool
> > > complains about it.
> > 
> > I could be wrong, but I would guess that Marco is looking for something
> > a little less subjective and a little more specific.  ;-)
> 
> How is that either? If any valid translation by a compile results in
> correct functionality, yet the tool complains, then surely we can speak
> of a objective fact.

Marco covered my concern in his point about the need to change the
compiler.

In any case, agreed, if a read does nothing but feed into the old/new
values for a CAS, the only thing a reasonable compiler (as opposed to
a just-barely-meets-the-standard demonic compiler) can do to you is to
decrease the CAS success rate.

							Thanx, Paul