[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190817112655.2277a9c5@oasis.local.home>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 11:26:55 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 10:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> > I'm now even more against adding the READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE().
>
> I'm not convinced by your arguments.
Prove to me that there's an issue here beyond theoretical analysis,
then I'll consider that patch.
Show me a compiler used to compile the kernel that zeros out the
increment. Show me were the race actually occurs.
I think the READ/WRITE_ONCE() is more confusing than helpful. And
unneeded churn to the code. And really not needed for something that's
not critical to execution.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists