[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1360102474.23943.1566057317249.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 11:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 Aug 17, 2019, at 11:26 AM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:
> 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.
I'll have to let the authors of the LWN article speak up on this, because
I have limited time to replicate this investigation myself.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists