linux-arch.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, dvyukov@google.com, glider@google.com,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] kcsan: Skew delay to be longer for certain access types
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:26:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200721142654.GA3396394@elver.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200721140523.GA10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:30:11PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > For compound instrumentation and assert accesses, skew the watchpoint
> > delay to be longer. We still shouldn't exceed the maximum delays, but it
> > is safe to skew the delay for these accesses.
> 
> Complete lack of actual justification.. *why* are you doing this, and
> *why* is it safe etc..

CONFIG_KCSAN_UDELAY_{TASK,INTERRUPT} define the upper bound. When
randomized, the delays aggregate around a mean of KCSAN_UDELAY/2. We're
not breaking the promise of not exceeding the max by skewing the delay
if randomized. That's all this was meant to say.

I'll rewrite the commit message:

	For compound instrumentation and assert accesses, skew the
	watchpoint delay to be longer if randomized. This is useful to
	improve race detection for such accesses.

	For compound accesses we should increase the delay as we've
	aggregated both read and write instrumentation. By giving up 1
	call into the runtime, we're less likely to set up a watchpoint
	and thus less likely to detect a race. We can balance this by
	increasing the watchpoint delay.

	For assert accesses, we know these are of increased interest,
	and we wish to increase our chances of detecting races for such
	checks.

	Note that, CONFIG_KCSAN_UDELAY_{TASK,INTERRUPT} define the upper
	bound delays. Skewing the delay does not break this promise as
	long as the defined upper bounds are still adhered to.

Thanks,
-- Marco

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-21 14:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-21 10:30 [PATCH 0/8] kcsan: Compound read-write instrumentation Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 1/8] kcsan: Support compounded " Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30   ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 2/8] objtool, kcsan: Add __tsan_read_write to uaccess whitelist Marco Elver
2020-07-21 14:04   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 3/8] kcsan: Skew delay to be longer for certain access types Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30   ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 14:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 14:26     ` Marco Elver [this message]
2020-07-21 14:34       ` peterz
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 4/8] kcsan: Add missing CONFIG_KCSAN_IGNORE_ATOMICS checks Marco Elver
2020-07-21 14:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 14:21     ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 5/8] kcsan: Test support for compound instrumentation Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30   ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 11:06   ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 6/8] instrumented.h: Introduce read-write instrumentation hooks Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 7/8] asm-generic/bitops: Use instrument_read_write() where appropriate Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30   ` Marco Elver
2020-07-21 10:30 ` [PATCH 8/8] locking/atomics: Use read-write instrumentation for atomic RMWs Marco Elver
2020-07-21 14:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 14:18     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-22 10:11     ` Marco Elver
2020-08-14 11:28       ` Mark Rutland
2020-08-14 11:31         ` Mark Rutland
2020-08-14 11:59           ` Marco Elver
2020-08-14 12:34             ` Mark Rutland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200721142654.GA3396394@elver.google.com \
    --to=elver@google.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).