[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVw+4McyFdvU7ZED@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:02:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu/kcsan 16/23] locking/atomics, kcsan: Add
instrumentation for barriers
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:58:58PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> @@ -59,6 +60,7 @@ atomic_add(int i, atomic_t *v)
> static __always_inline int
> atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> {
> + kcsan_mb();
> instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
> return arch_atomic_add_return(i, v);
> }
This and others,.. is this actually correct? Should that not be
something like:
kscan_mb();
instrument_atomic_read_write(...);
ret = arch_atomic_add_return(i, v);
kcsan_mb();
return ret;
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists