public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] rcutorture: formal: prepare for ACCESS_ONCE() removal
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:51:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171009195112.GL3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507573730-8083-14-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:28:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
> preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
> former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
> ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.
> 
> However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
> writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
> distinction is critical to correct operation.
> 
> The bulk of the kernel code can be transformed via Coccinelle to use
> {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), though this only modifies users of ACCESS_ONCE(),
> and not the implementation itself. As such, it has the potential to
> break homebrew ACCESS_ONCE() macros seen in some user code in the kernel
> tree (e.g. the virtio code, as fixed in commit ea9156fb3b71d9f7).
> 
> To avoid fragility if/when that transformation occurs, this patch
> reworks the rcutorture formal tests to use an intermediate
> __ACCESS_ONCE() helper, which will avoid {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() being
> turned into tautological definitions. There should be no functional
> change as a result of this patch.
> 
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> index 6687acc..ee4e4f8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/formal/srcu-cbmc/src/barriers.h
> @@ -34,8 +34,9 @@
>  #define rs_smp_mb() do {} while (0)
>  #endif
> 
> -#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x))
> -#define READ_ONCE(x) ACCESS_ONCE(x)
> -#define WRITE_ONCE(x, val) (ACCESS_ONCE(x) = (val))
> +#define __ACCESS_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x))
> +#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) __ACCESS_ONCE(x)
> +#define READ_ONCE(x) __ACCESS_ONCE(x)
> +#define WRITE_ONCE(x, val) (__ACCESS_ONCE(x) = (val))

How about something like the following?

#define READ_ONCE(x) (*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x))
#define WRITE_ONCE(x) ((*(volatile typeof(x) *) &(x)) = (val))


							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-09 19:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-09 18:28 [PATCH 00/13] Preparatory work to kill off ACCESS_ONCE() Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 01/13] dm integrity: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 02/13] EDAC, altera: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 23:12   ` Thor Thayer
2017-10-10  9:30     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 03/13] firmware/ivc: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 04/13] fs: dcache: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 05/13] fs: ncpfs: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 06/13] media: dvb_ringbuffer: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 07/13] net: netlink/netfilter: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 08/13] net/ipv4/tcp_input.c: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 19:03   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 09/13] net: average: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-10  9:28   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 10/13] samples: mic/mpssd/mpssd.c: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 11/13] selftests/powerpc: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-10  0:45   ` Michael Ellerman
2017-10-10  9:32     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 12/13] workqueue: " Mark Rutland
2017-10-10 14:06   ` Tejun Heo
2017-10-10 16:21     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 18:28 ` [PATCH 13/13] rcutorture: formal: prepare for ACCESS_ONCE() removal Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 19:51   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2017-10-10  9:54     ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-10 12:47       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-10 12:50         ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-10 14:52           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-10 16:24             ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-10 16:35               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-10 16:27             ` Joe Perches
2017-10-10 16:35               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-10-10 16:41               ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-10 16:57                 ` Joe Perches
2017-10-10 17:06                   ` Mark Rutland
2017-10-09 20:02 ` [PATCH 00/13] Preparatory work to kill off ACCESS_ONCE() Paul E. McKenney

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=20171009195112.GL3521@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    /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