[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190430083409.GD2677@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 10:34:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix improper uses of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14:56PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hello!
>
> A relatively common misuse of these barriers is to apply these to
> operations which are not read-modify-write operations, such as
> atomic_set() and atomic_read(); examples were discussed in [1].
>
> This series attempts to fix those uses by (conservatively) replacing
> the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() barriers with full memory barriers.
I don't think blindly doing this replacement makes the code any better;
much of the code you found is just straight up dodgy to begin with.
I think the people should mostly just consider this a bug report.
Also, remember a memory barrier without a coherent comment is most
likely a bug anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists