Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-60840-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <05563a26-9c3f-4a3b-ade6-c417feca70e6@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:41:23 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 2/2] watchdog/softlockup: report the most frequent
 interrupts
Content-Language: en-US
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, kernelfans@gmail.com,
 liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 yaoma@linux.alibaba.com
References: <20240208125426.70511-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240208125426.70511-3-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAD=FV=UP_G3Rswi_HePkgmcniADKhkoP51=H=PxGKbdegEfUgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UP_G3Rswi_HePkgmcniADKhkoP51=H=PxGKbdegEfUgg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/2/9 00:03, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 4:54 AM Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> +static void start_counting_irqs(void)
>> +{
>> +       int i;
>> +       int local_nr_irqs;
>> +       struct irq_desc *desc;
>> +       u32 *counts = __this_cpu_read(hardirq_counts);
>> +
>> +       if (!counts) {
>> +               /*
>> +                * nr_irqs has the potential to grow at runtime. We should read
>> +                * it and store locally to avoid array out-of-bounds access.
>> +                */
>> +               local_nr_irqs = READ_ONCE(nr_irqs);
> 
> nit: I don't think the READ_ONCE() is actually needed above. All that
> matters is that you're consistently using the same local variable
> ("local_nr_irqs") for allocating the array, looping, and then storing.
> No matter what optimizations might be happening and what else might be
> happening on other CPUs, once you put it in a local variable the
> compiler _must_ keep it consistent.
Oh, yes, READ_ONCE() is not necessary here.
> 
> That being said, I don't think it really matters, so I'm not sure it's
> worth spinning your series just for that.
> 
> In any case, this patch looks good to me now. Thanks!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>