On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:04 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 01:13:27AM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > + for (i = pmd_index(start), addr = start; addr != end; i++, addr = next) {
> > + pmd_t val = pmd_read_atomic(pmd + i);
> > +
> > + /* for pmd_read_atomic() */
> > + barrier();
>
> Please clarify the above. This is an entirely inadequate ordering
> comment.
If it's acceptable, I'll copy what we have in
pmd_none_or_clear_bad_unless_trans_huge():
pmd_t pmdval = pmd_read_atomic(pmd);
/* See pmd_none_or_trans_huge_or_clear_bad for info on barrier */
#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
barrier();
#endif
if (pmd_none(pmdval))
return 1;
pmd_read_atomic() should have a built-in READ_ONCE() in the first
place. If we have to use pmd_read_atomic(), it means we are not under
PMD PTL. So we can also race with pte_alloc(), regardless of THP
split. In this case, compiler reordering probably won't cause any real
damage, but technically not having barrier() is still a bug and will
trigger KCSAN warnings, I think.
