On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:55:43 -0800
paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The rcu_node structure's ->exp_seq_rq field is read locklessly, so
> this commit adds the WRITE_ONCE() to a load in order to provide proper
> documentation and READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() pairing.
>
> This data race was reported by KCSAN. Not appropriate for backporting
> due to failure being unlikely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> index d7e0484..85b009e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ static bool exp_funnel_lock(unsigned long s)
> sync_exp_work_done(s));
> return true;
> }
> - rnp->exp_seq_rq = s; /* Followers can wait on us. */
> + WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_seq_rq, s); /* Followers can wait on us. */
Didn't Linus say this is basically bogus?
Perhaps just using it as documenting that it's read locklessly, but is
it really needed?
-- Steve
> spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock);
> trace_rcu_exp_funnel_lock(rcu_state.name, rnp->level,
> rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, TPS("nxtlvl"));
