[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1E0741E0-2BD9-4FA3-BA41-4E83315A10A8@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 08:54:17 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: Question about the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu()
> On Jul 20, 2023, at 4:00 PM, Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 2023年7月21日 03:22,Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> 写道:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:54 PM Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I noticed a commit c87a124a5d5e(“net: force a reload of first item in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu”)
>>> and a related discussion [1].
>>>
>>> After reading the whole discussion, it seems like that ptr->field was cached by gcc even with the deprecated
>>> ACCESS_ONCE(), so my question is:
>>>
>>> Is that a compiler bug? If so, has this bug been fixed today, ten years later?
>>>
>>> What about READ_ONCE(ptr->field)?
>>
>> Make sure sparse is happy.
>
> It caused a problem without barrier(), and the deprecated ACCESS_ONCE() didn’t help:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/519D19DA.50400@yandex-team.ru/
>
> So, my real question is: With READ_ONCE(ptr->field), are there still some unusual cases where gcc
> decides not to reload ptr->field?
I am a bit doubtful there will be strong (any?) interest in replacing the barrier() with READ_ONCE() without any tangible reason, regardless of whether a gcc issue was fixed.
But hey, if you want to float the idea…
Thanks,
- Joel
>
>>
>> Do you have a patch for review ?
>
> Possibly next month. :)
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1369699930.3301.494.camel@edumazet-glaptop/
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists