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, 18 Feb 2020 21:26:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     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, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] srcu: Add READ_ONCE() to srcu_struct
 ->srcu_gp_seq load
Message-ID: <20200218202644.GG11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200215002907.GA15895@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200215002932.15976-4-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200217124507.GT14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200217183220.GS2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200218114334.GX14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200218163405.GF2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200218163405.GF2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:34:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Well, I didn't get further than the Changelog fails to describe an
> > actual problem and it looks like compare-against-a-constant.
> > 
> > (worse, it masks off everything but the 2 lowest bits, so even if there
> > was a problem with load-tearing, it still wouldn't matter)
> 
> There is still the possibility of load fusing. 

Agreed; that can be an issue. But if so, that then needs to be stated.

> And the possibility
> of defending against possible future changes as well as the current
> snapshot of the code base.

Sure; and like I said, if you want to use READ_ONCE() I'm not going to
argue.

> > I'm not going to argue with you if you want to use READ_ONCE() vs
> > data_race() and a comment to denote false-positive KCSAN warnings, but I
> > do feel somewhat strongly that the Changelog should describe the actual
> > problem -- if there is one -- or just flat out state that this is to
> > make KCSAN shut up but the code is fine.
> 
> The problem is that "the code is fine" is highly subjective and varies
> over time.  :-/
> 
> But in this case there was a real problem, just that I got confused
> when analyzing.

Shit happens :-)

> > That is; every KCSAN report should be analysed, right? All I'm asking is
> > for that analysis to end up in the Changelog.
> 
> Before responding further, I have to ask...
> 
> Are you intending your "every KCSAN report should be analyzed" to apply
> globally or just when someone creates a patch based on such a report?

Ideally every KCSAN report, but that is a longer term effort. But
specifically, when someone has written a patch, I expect that same
someone to have analysed the code. Then it also makes sense to put that
in the Changelog.

> In any case, you have acked this patch's successor (thank you very
> much!), so on this specific patch (or more accurately, its successor)
> I presume that we are all good.

We are. That new patch describes a clear problem and fixes it.

Anyway, the reaoson I'm being difficuly is partly because on the one
hand I'm just an annoying pendant at times, but also because I've seen
a bunch of, let's say, hasty, KCSAN patches.