[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: KCSAN: data-race in __alloc_file / __alloc_file
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:30 PM Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:56 AM Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I would love an efficient ADD_ONCE(variable, value)
> >
> > Using WRITE_ONCE(variable, variable + value) is not good, since it can
> > not use the optimized instructions operating directly on memory.
> So I'm having a hard time seeing how this could possibly ever be valid.
> Is this a "writer is locked, readers are unlocked" case or something?

per cpu SNMP counters mostly, with no IRQ safety requirements.

Note that this could be implemented using local{64}_add() on arches like x86_64,
while others might have to fallback to WRITE_ONCE(variable, variable + add)

> Because we don't really have any sane way to do that any more
> efficiently, unless we'd have to add new architecture-specific
> functions for it (like we do have fo the percpu ops).
> Anyway, if you have a really hot case you care about, maybe you could
> convince the gcc people to just add it as a peephole optimization?
> Right now, gcc ends up doing some strange things with volatiles, and
> basically disables a lot of stuff over them. But with a test-case,
> maybe you can convince somebody that certain optimizations are still
> fine. A "read+add+write" really does the exact same accesses as an
> add-to-memory instruction, but gcc has some logic to disable that
> instruction fusion.
> Linus

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-08 21:55    [W:0.087 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site