On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:48 PM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Honestly, my preferred model would have been to just add a comment,
> > and have the reporting tool know to then just ignore it. So something
> > like
> >
> > + // Benign data-race on min_flt
> > tsk->min_flt++;
> > perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS_MIN, 1, regs, address);
> >
> > for the case that Eric mentioned - the tool would trigger on
> > "data-race", and the rest of the comment could/should be for humans.
> > Without making the code uglier, but giving the potential for a nice
> > leghibl.e explanation instead of a completely illegible "let's
> > randomly use WRITE_ONCE() here" or something like that.
>
> Just to be perfectly clear, then:
>
> Your feeling is that we don't need to tell the compiler anything at all
> about these races, because if a compiler generates code that is
> non-robust against such things then you don't want to use it for the
> kernel.
>
I would prefer some kind of explicit marking, instead of a comment.
Even if we prefer having a sane compiler, having these clearly
annotated can help
code readability quite a lot.
/*
* To use when we are ok with minor races... bla bla bla
*/
static void inline add_relaxed(int *p, int x)
{
x += __atomic_load_n(p, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
__atomic_store_n(p, x, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
}
The actual implementation might depend on the compiler, and revert to something
without any constraint for old compilers : *p += x;
