On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 00:14, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add a citation to Marco's LF mentorship session presentation entitled > "The Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer" > > [ paulmck: Apply Marco Elver feedback. ] > > Reported-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for adding. > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jade Alglave <j.alglave@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlustig@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt | 10 +++++++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt > index 65778222183e3..f531b0837356b 100644 > --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt > +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt > @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ normal accesses to shared memory, that is "normal" as in accesses that do > not use read-modify-write atomic operations. It also describes how to > document these accesses, both with comments and with special assertions > processed by the Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer (KCSAN). This discussion > -builds on an earlier LWN article [1]. > +builds on an earlier LWN article [1] and Linux Foundation mentorship > +session [2]. > > > ACCESS-MARKING OPTIONS > @@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ example: > WRITE_ONCE(a, b + data_race(c + d) + READ_ONCE(e)); > > Neither plain C-language accesses nor data_race() (#1 and #2 above) place > -any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [2]. > +any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [3]. > In contrast, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() (#3 and #4 above) restrict the > compiler's use of code-motion and common-subexpression optimizations. > Therefore, if a given access is involved in an intentional data race, > @@ -594,5 +595,8 @@ REFERENCES > [1] "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)" > https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/ > > -[2] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?" > +[2] "The Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer" > + https://www.linuxfoundation.org/webinars/the-kernel-concurrency-sanitizer > + > +[3] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?" > https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/ > -- > 2.40.1 >
