Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-184048-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 11:05:31 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Annotate a racy read in blk_do_io_stat()
Message-ID: <14bb1b20-b03c-45c1-9566-9287eee23c54@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <447ad732-3ff8-40bf-bd82-f7be66899cee@paulmck-laptop>
 <ca7c2ef0-7e21-4fb3-ac6b-3dae652a7a0e@acm.org>
 <59ec96c2-52ce-4da1-92c3-9fe38053cd3d@paulmck-laptop>
 <CANpmjNMj9r1V6Z63fcJxrFC1v4i2vUCEhm1HT77ikxhx0Rghdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <dd251dba-0a63-4b57-a05b-bfa02615fae5@paulmck-laptop>
 <CANpmjNMqRUNUs1mZEhrOSyK0Hk+PdGOi+VAs22qYD+1zTkwfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <75421237-4c5a-48bc-849e-87a216ee9d32@paulmck-laptop>
 <CANpmjNM-Cg12qCU3WoLeBboogLQVgn4znFerRwD3BVAFMc9BiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d9df8351-7cc2-4562-a8b5-440344bfeb91@paulmck-laptop>
 <CANpmjNO+WDF804s49VdCf2=3io5Uh=8ZbM_jiW5j1rcbcONbUA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNO+WDF804s49VdCf2=3io5Uh=8ZbM_jiW5j1rcbcONbUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:35:02AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 23:51, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > And I just checked the current access-marking.txt to see where we
> > > might add more, and found the section "ACCESS-DOCUMENTATION OPTIONS"
> > > already exists. I think that section is perfectly reasonable as is,
> > > and it does explicitly talk about ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE* macros.
> > >
> > > Did you want to add it more prominently at the top? If so, maybe a
> > > brief forward-reference to that section might be helpful.
> >
> > How about like this?
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The Linux kernel provides the following access-marking options:
> >
> > 1.      Plain C-language accesses (unmarked), for example, "a = b;"
> >
> > 2.      Data-race marking, for example, "data_race(a = b);"
> >
> > 3.      READ_ONCE(), for example, "a = READ_ONCE(b);"
> >         The various forms of atomic_read() also fit in here.
> >
> > 4.      WRITE_ONCE(), for example, "WRITE_ONCE(a, b);"
> >         The various forms of atomic_set() also fit in here.
> >
> > 5.      __data_racy, for example "int __data_racy a;"
> >
> > 6.      KCSAN's negative-marking assertions, ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_ACCESS()
> >         and ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER(), are desccribed in the
> >         "ACCESS-DOCUMENTATION OPTIONS" section below.
> 
> s/desccribed/described/

Good eyes, fixed!

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Would that work?
> 
> It works for me, if we agree that "negative marking" makes sense: if
> the other markings indicate the access is happening concurrently with
> others, a negative marking does the opposite.

Very good, I will send this out shortly after v6.10-rc1 comes out and
let's see where the bikeshedding leads.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul