Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] timekeeping: Annotate ktime_get_boot_fast_ns() with
 data_race()
In-Reply-To: <YllgHEhwDOYqv5IX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220415091223.187169221@linutronix.de>
 <20220415091920.956045162@linutronix.de>
 <YllgHEhwDOYqv5IX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:46:11 +0200
Message-ID: <87pmli9g0s.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 15 2022 at 14:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Accessing timekeeper::offset_boot in ktime_get_boot_fast_ns() is an
>> intended data race as the reader side cannot synchronize with a writer and
>> there is no space in struct tk_read_base of the NMI safe timekeeper.
>> 
>> Mark it so.
>
> If offs_boot actually ever changed?

Yes, during resume to compensate for the time spent in suspend. So, yes
the data_race() is more of documentary value.

Thanks,

        tglx