[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201208081129.GQ2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:11:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
syzbot+23a256029191772c2f02@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+56078ac0b9071335a745@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzbot+867130cb240c41f15164@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] tick: Annotate tick_do_timer_cpu data races
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:44:06AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Also, in this particular case, why data_race() rather than READ_ONCE()?
> Do we really expect the compiler to be able to optimize this case
> significantly without READ_ONCE()?
It's about intent and how the code reads. READ_ONCE() is something
completely different from data_race(). data_race() is correct here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists