Re: [PATCH] block: Annotate a racy read in blk_do_io_stat()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/10/24 07:19, Breno Leitao wrote:
diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
index d9f584984bc4..57a1d73a0718 100644
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@ -353,7 +353,8 @@ int blk_dev_init(void);
   */
  static inline bool blk_do_io_stat(struct request *rq)
  {
-	return (rq->rq_flags & RQF_IO_STAT) && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq);
+	/* Disk stats reading isn’t critical, let it race */
+	return (data_race(rq->rq_flags) & RQF_IO_STAT) && !blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq);
  }
void update_io_ticks(struct block_device *part, unsigned long now, bool end);

Why to annotate this race with data_race() instead of READ_ONCE()? Are
there any cases in which it is better to use data_race() than
READ_ONCE()?

Thanks,

Bart.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux