[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210723165947.GA46562@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:59:47 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org, parri.andrea@...il.com,
will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-model 2/4] tools/memory-model: Add example for
heuristic lockless reads
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 09:24:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:08:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > + void do_something_locked(struct foo *fp)
> > > + {
> > > + bool gf = true;
> > > +
> > > + /* IMPORTANT: Heuristic plus spin_lock()! */
> > > + if (!data_race(global_flag)) {
> > > + spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
> > > + if (!smp_load_acquire(&global_flag)) {
> > > + void begin_global(void)
> > > + {
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&global_lock);
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(global_flag, true);
> >
> > Why does this need to be WRITE_ONCE? It still races with the first read
> > of global_flag above.
>
> But also with the smp_load_acquire() of global_flag, right?
What I'm curious about is why, given these two races, you notate one of
them by changing a normal write to WRITE_ONCE and you notate the other
by changing a normal read to a data_race() read. Why not handle them
both the same way?
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists