Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:57:15 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        'Petko Manolov' <petko.manolov@konsulko.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] WRITE_ONCE_INC() and friends
Message-ID: <20200420225715.GA176156@google.com>
References: <20200419094439.GA32841@carbon>
 <491f0b0bc9e4419d93a78974fd7f44c7@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20200419182957.GA36919@carbon>
 <8e5a0283ed76465aac19a2b97a27ff15@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20200420150545.GB17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200420150545.GB17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.13.2 (2019-12-18)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 09:37:10PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Petko Manolov
> > > Sent: 19 April 2020 19:30
> > > 
> > > On 20-04-19 18:02:50, David Laight wrote:
> > > > From: Petko Manolov
> > > > > Sent: 19 April 2020 10:45
> > > > > Recently I started reading up on KCSAN and at some point I ran into stuff like:
> > > > >
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx], ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx] + 1);
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq, READ_ONCE(p->mm->numa_scan_seq) + 1);
> > > >
> > > > If all the accesses use READ/WRITE_ONCE() why not just mark the structure
> > > > field 'volatile'?
> > > 
> > > This is a bit heavy.  I guess you've read this one:
> > > 
> > > 	https://lwn.net/Articles/233479/
> > 
> > I remember reading something similar before.
> > I also remember a very old gcc (2.95?) that did a readback
> > after every volatile write on sparc (to flush the store buffer).
> > That broke everything.
> > 
> > I suspect there is a lot more code that is attempting to be lockless
> > these days.
> > Ring buffers (one writer and one reader) are a typical example where
> > you don't need locks but do need to use a consistent value.
> > 
> > Now you may also need ordering between accesses - which I think needs
> > more than volatile.
> 
> In Petko's patch, all needed ordering is supplied by the fact that it
> is the same variable being read and written.  But yes, in many other
> cases, more ordering is required.
> 
> > > And no, i am not sure all accesses are through READ/WRITE_ONCE().  If, for
> > > example, all others are from withing spin_lock/unlock pairs then we _may_ not
> > > need READ/WRITE_ONCE().
> > 
> > The cost of volatile accesses is probably minimal unless the
> > code is written assuming the compiler will only access things once.
> 
> And there are variables marked as volatile, for example, jiffies.
> 
> But one downside of declaring variables volatile is that it can prevent
> KCSAN from spotting violations of the concurrency design for those
> variables.

Note that, KCSAN currently treats volatiles not as special, except a
list of some known global volatiles (like jiffies). This means, that
KCSAN will tell us about data races involving unmarked volatiles (unless
they're in the list).

As far as I can tell, this is what we want. At least according to LKMM.

If, for whatever reason, volatiles should be treated differently, we'll
have to modify the compilers to emit different instrumentation for the
kernel.

Thanks,
-- Marco