Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-175687-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 13:31:49 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/48] rcu: Mark writes to rcu_sync ->gp_count field
Message-ID: <20240510113149.GA24764@redhat.com>
References: <20240507093530.3043-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20240507093530.3043-26-urezki@gmail.com>
 <ZjpAsYJIfzYSKgdA@redhat.com>
 <4c9e89b5-c981-4809-8bc2-247563ce04e9@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240509151312.GA22612@redhat.com>
 <f0a02cfe-7fc2-494c-8734-e5583f42a8f7@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f0a02cfe-7fc2-494c-8734-e5583f42a8f7@paulmck-laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 05/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 05:13:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > We can move these WARN_ON()'s into the ->rss_lock protected section.
> >
> > Or perhaps we can use data_race(rsp->gp_count) ? To be honest I thought
> > that READ_ONCE() should be enough...
> >
> > Or we can simply kill these WARN_ON_ONCE()'s.
>
> Or we could move those WARN_ON_ONCE() under the lock.

Sure, see above.

But could you help me to understand this magic? I naively thought
that READ_ONCE() is always "safe"...

So, unless I am totally confused it turns out that, say,

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	-----			-----

	spin_lock(LOCK);
	++X;			READ_ONCE(X); // data race
	spin_unlock(LOCK);

is data-racy accoring to KCSAN, while

	CPU 0			CPU 1
	-----			-----

	spin_lock(LOCK);
	WRITE_ONCE(X, X+1);	READ_ONCE(X); // no data race
	spin_unlock(LOCK);

is not.

Why is that?

Trying to read Documentation/dev-tools/kcsan.rst... it says

	KCSAN is aware of *marked atomic operations* (``READ_ONCE``, WRITE_ONCE``,

	...

	if all accesses to a variable that is accessed concurrently are properly
	marked, KCSAN will never trigger a watchpoint

but how can KCSAN detect that all accesses to X are properly marked? I see nothing
KCSAN-related in the definition of WRITE_ONCE() or READ_ONCE().

And what does the "all accesses" above actually mean? The 2nd version does

	WRITE_ONCE(X, X+1);

but "X + 1" is the plain/unmarked access?

Thanks,

Oleg.