Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94906-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <851dc594-d2ea-4050-b7c6-e33a1cddf3a1@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 22:06:21 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix
 rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency
 bug
Content-Language: en-US
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linke li <lilinke99@qq.com>,
 joel@joelfernandes.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
 frederic@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com,
 quic_neeraju@quicinc.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org
References: <f3624f39-bbb1-451d-8161-8518e4108d8e@joelfernandes.org>
 <tencent_9882B228F292088CDD68F10CF1C228742009@qq.com>
 <20240306103719.1d241b93@gandalf.local.home>
 <27665890-8314-4252-8622-1e019fee27e4@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240306130103.6da71ddf@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgG6Dmt1JTXDbrbXh_6s2yLjL=9pHo7uv0==LHFD+aBtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306135504.2b3872ef@gandalf.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wjbDgMKLgxbV+yK4LKZ+2Qj6zVL_sHeb+L9KDia980Q8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306142738.7b66a716@rorschach.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgPAZ4KnCQergqAOUypwinYh=gZ0q4EQbwvuUcJ_8UK+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <83b47424-e5e0-46de-aa63-d413a5aa6cec@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAHk-=wiX_zF5Mpt8kUm_LFQpYY-mshrXJPOe+wKNwiVhEUcU9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiX_zF5Mpt8kUm_LFQpYY-mshrXJPOe+wKNwiVhEUcU9g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024-03-06 21:43, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
> 
> Honestly, this all makes me think that we'd be *much* better off
> showing the real "handoff" with smp_store_release() and
> smp_load_acquire().

We've done something similar in liburcu (userspace code) to allow
Thread Sanitizer to understand the happens-before relationships
within the RCU implementations and lock-free data structures.

Moving to load-acquire/store-release (C11 model in our case)
allowed us to provide enough happens-before relationship for
Thread Sanitizer to understand what is happening under the
hood in liburcu and perform relevant race detection of user
code.

As far as the WRITE_ONCE(x, READ_ONCE(x) + 1) pattern
is concerned, the only valid use-case I can think of is
split counters or RCU implementations where there is a
single updater doing the increment, and one or more
concurrent reader threads that need to snapshot a
consistent value with READ_ONCE().

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com