[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201217104823.GU3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:48:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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 01:19:31PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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().
Huh, what, why?
The code doesn't need READ_ONCE(), it merely wants to tell kasan that
the race it observes is fine and as to please shut up.
IOW data_race() is accurate and right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists