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:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:11:35 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE to rcu_node
 ->exp_seq_rq store
Message-ID: <20200217211135.GA207704@google.com>
References: <20200214235536.GA13364@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200214235607.13749-6-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200214224743.280772a7@oasis.local.home>
 <20200215105803.GY2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200215105803.GY2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:58:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:47:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:55:43 -0800
> > paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
> > 
> > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > The rcu_node structure's ->exp_seq_rq field is read locklessly, so
> > > this commit adds the WRITE_ONCE() to a load in order to provide proper
> > > documentation and READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() pairing.
> > > 
> > > This data race was reported by KCSAN.  Not appropriate for backporting
> > > due to failure being unlikely.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > index d7e0484..85b009e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static bool exp_funnel_lock(unsigned long s)
> > >  				   sync_exp_work_done(s));
> > >  			return true;
> > >  		}
> > > -		rnp->exp_seq_rq = s; /* Followers can wait on us. */
> > > +		WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq, s); /* Followers can wait on us. */
> > 
> > Didn't Linus say this is basically bogus?
> > 
> > Perhaps just using it as documenting that it's read locklessly, but is
> > it really needed?
> 
> Yes, Linus explicitly stated that WRITE_ONCE() is not required in
> this case, but he also said that he was OK with it being there for
> documentation purposes.

Just to add, PeterZ does approve of WRITE_ONCE() to prevent store-tearing
where applicable.

And I have reproduced Will's example [1] with the arm64 Clang compiler
shipping with the latest Android NDK just now. It does break up stores when
writing zeroes to 64-bit valyes, this is a real problem which WRITE_ONCE()
resolves. And I've verified GCC on arm64 does break up 64-bit immediate value
writes without WRITE_ONCE().

thanks,

 - Joel

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190821103200.kpufwtviqhpbuv2n@willie-the-truck/


> And within RCU, I -do- need it because I absolutely need to see if a
> given patch introduced new KCSAN reports.  So I need it for the same
> reason that I need the build to proceed without warnings.
> 
> Others who are working with less concurrency-intensive code might quite
> reasonably make other choices, of course.  And my setting certain KCSAN
> config options in my own builds doesn't inconvenience them, so we should
> all be happy, right?  :-)
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > -- Steve
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >  		spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock);
> > >  		trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rcu_state.name, rnp->level,
> > >  					  rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("nxtlvl"));
> >