On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 07:28:41AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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()?
data_race() doesn't not emit any code, but, keep KCSAN silent.
READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() emits code.
So, if you do not want to change the current behaviour, but, keep KCSAN
away, data_race() is preferred.
