From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Jonas Malaco <jonas@protocubo.io>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (nzxt-kraken2) mark and order concurrent accesses
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:53:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210329215339.GH220164@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210329082211.86716-1-jonas@protocubo.io>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:22:01AM -0300, Jonas Malaco wrote:
> To avoid a spinlock, the driver explores concurrent memory accesses
> between _raw_event and _read, having the former updating fields on a
> data structure while the latter could be reading from them. Because
> these are "plain" accesses, those are data races according to the Linux
> kernel memory model (LKMM).
>
> Data races are undefined behavior in both C11 and LKMM. In practice,
> the compiler is free to make optimizations assuming there is no data
> race, including load tearing, load fusing and many others,[1] most of
> which could result in corruption of the values reported to user-space.
>
> Prevent undesirable optimizations to those concurrent accesses by
> marking them with READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(). This also removes the
> data races, according to the LKMM, because both loads and stores to each
> location are now "marked" accesses.
>
> As a special case, use smp_load_acquire() and smp_load_release() when
> loading and storing ->updated, as it is used to track the validity of
> the other values, and thus has to be stored after and loaded before
> them. These imply READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() but also ensure the desired
> order of memory accesses.
>
> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/
>
I think you lost me a bit there. What out-of-order accesses that would be
triggered by a compiler optimization are you concerned about here ?
The only "problem" I can think of is that priv->updated may have been
written before the actual values. The impact would be ... zero. An
attribute read would return "stale" data for a few microseconds.
Why is that a concern, and what difference does it make ?
Thanks,
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-29 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-29 8:22 [PATCH] hwmon: (nzxt-kraken2) mark and order concurrent accesses Jonas Malaco
2021-03-29 21:53 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2021-03-30 0:21 ` Jonas Malaco
2021-03-30 1:01 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-30 3:16 ` Jonas Malaco
2021-03-30 5:43 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-30 6:27 ` Jonas Malaco
2021-03-30 10:51 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-30 17:53 ` Jonas Malaco
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=20210329215339.GH220164@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
--cc=jonas@protocubo.io \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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