[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603155618.GR22231@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:56:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, sparse@...isli.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] introduce atomic_pointer to fix a race condition in
cancelable mcs spinlocks
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 05:09:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:07:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:36:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > #ifdef __CHECKER__
> > > #define __atomic __attribute__((address_space(5)))
> > > #else
> > > #define __atomic
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > #define store(p, v) (*(p) = (typeof(*(p)) __force __atomic)(v))
> > > #define load(p) ((typeof(*p) __force)ACCESS_ONCE(*(p)))
> > >
> > > Along with changes to xchg() and cmpxchg() that require them to take
> > > pointers to __atomic.
> > >
> > > That way we keep the flexibility of xchg() and cmpxchg() for being
> > > (mostly) type and size invariant, and get sparse to find wrong usage.
> > >
> > > Then parisc, sparc32, tile32, metag-lock1 and arc-!llsc can go implement
> > > store() however they like.
> >
> > Should be fun interacting with atomic operations on __rcu variables
> > (address space 4). Of course, that is already fun...
> >
>
> Hmm, good point, I suppose sparse doesn't like two different
> address_space annotations on the same variable ?
>
> /me adds Christpoher Li to the CC list.
>
> ISTR Mikulas actually listing one such, me digs in recent email..
>
> > $ grep -w "fdt->fd" */*.c
> > fs/file.c: free_fdmem(fdt->fd);
> > fs/file.c: fdt->fd = data;
> > fs/file.c: free_fdmem(fdt->fd);
> > fs/file.c: struct file * file = xchg(&fdt->fd[i], NULL);
>
> So yes, that's going to be fun, mostly because rcu_assign_pointer()
> doesn't actually do the right magic for this to be safe on their
> platform(s).
Maybe at some point sparse needs to keep a bit mask for the address
spaces, so that you caould say somthing like:
struct foo __atomic __rcu *p;
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists