[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87czz9savm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 22:23:57 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
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 Wed, Dec 16 2020 at 13:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 01:27:43AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So my intent was to document that this code does not care about anything
>> else than what I'd consider to be plain compiler bugs.
>>
>> My conclusion might be wrong as usual :)
>
> Given that there is no optimization potential, then the main reason to use
> data_race() instead of *_ONCE() is to prevent KCSAN from considering the
> accesses when looking for data races. But that is mostly for debugging
> accesses, in cases when these accesses are not really part of the
> concurrent algorithm.
>
> So if I understand the situation correctly, I would be using *ONCE().
Could this be spelled out somewhere in Documentation/ please?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists