Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-175902-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <ef8c5f6d-17e3-4504-8560-b970912b9eae@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 07:28:41 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Annotate a racy read in blk_do_io_stat()
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, "open list:BLOCK LAYER"
 <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240510141921.883231-1-leitao@debian.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240510141921.883231-1-leitao@debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 5/10/24 07:19, Breno Leitao wrote:
> diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
> index d9f584984bc4..57a1d73a0718 100644
> --- a/block/blk.h
> +++ b/block/blk.h
> @@ -353,7 +353,8 @@ int blk_dev_init(void);
>    */
>   static inline bool blk_do_io_stat(struct request *rq)
>   {
> -	return (rq->rq_flags & RQF_IO_STAT) && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq);
> +	/* Disk stats reading isn=E2=80=99t critical, let it race */
> +	return (data_race(rq->rq_flags) & RQF_IO_STAT) && !blk_rq_is_passthro=
ugh(rq);
>   }
>  =20
>   void update_io_ticks(struct block_device *part, unsigned long now, bo=
ol end);

Why to annotate this race with data_race() instead of READ_ONCE()? Are
there any cases in which it is better to use data_race() than
READ_ONCE()?

Thanks,

Bart.