Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 8 May 2023 10:39:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pipe: nonblocking rw for io_uring
Message-ID: <20230508083929.GT83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <6882b74e-874a-c116-62ac-564104c5ad34@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiQ8g+B0bCPJ9fxZ+Oa0LPAUAyryw9i+-fBUe72LoA+QQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgGzwaz2yGO9_PFv4O1ke_uHg25Ab0UndK+G9vJ9V4=hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2e7d4f63-7ddd-e4a6-e7eb-fd2a305d442e@kernel.dk>
 <69ec222c-1b75-cdc1-ac1b-0e9e504db6cb@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wiaFUoHpztu6Zf_4pyzH-gzeJhdCU0MYNw9LzVg1-kx8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjSuGTLrmygUSNh==u81iWUtVzJ5GNSz0A-jbr4WGoZyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230425194910.GA1350354@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wjNfkT1oVLGbe2=Vymp66Ht=tk+YKa9gUL4T=_hA_JLjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <978690c4-1d25-46e8-3375-45940ec1ea51@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <978690c4-1d25-46e8-3375-45940ec1ea51@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 04:04:23PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> Am 4/25/2023 um 9:58 PM schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > Yes, I think Mark is right. It's not that 'old' might be wrong - that
> > doesn't matter because cmpxchg will work it out - it's just that 'new'
> > might not be consistent with the old value we then use.
> 
> In the general pattern, besides the potential issue raised by Mark, tearing
> may also be an issue (longer example inspired by a case we met at the end of
> the mail) where 'old' being wrong matters.

There is yet another pattern where it actually matters:

	old = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
	do {
		if (cond(old))
			return false;

		new = func(old);
	} while (!try_cmpxchg(ptr, &old, new));

	return true;

In this case we rely on old being 'coherent'. The more obvious case is
where it returns old (also not uncommon), but even if it just checks a
(multi-bit) condition on old you don't want tearing.