public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] printk: Use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of a volatile type
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:48:33 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546589A1.9040100@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1415935283-19198-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com>

On 11/13/2014 09:21 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Remove volatile type qualifier and use ACCESS_ONCE() in its place for each
> access. Using volatile is not recommended as documented in
> Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt.
> 
> Here logbuf_cpu is a local variable and it is not clear how it is being accessed
> concurrently. We should remove volatile accesses entirely here, but for now make
> a safer change of using ACCESS_ONCE().

Although logbuf_cpu is declared locally, it has static scope and
hence its value is persistent across calls to the function,
including concurrent calls on different CPUs.

This is a very interesting bit of code.  I have a
question, below.

					-Alex

> 
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index e748971..4790191 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  	int printed_len = 0;
>  	bool in_sched = false;
>  	/* cpu currently holding logbuf_lock in this function */
> -	static volatile unsigned int logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> +	static unsigned int logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;

If this is not volatile, can the compiler assume that it
can't change before the first access?  Put another way,
does this assignment need to be done more like this?

	static unsigned int ACCESS_ONCE(logbuf_cpu) = UINT_MAX;

(I haven't checked, but I don't believe that expands to valid code.)

>  	if (level == LOGLEVEL_SCHED) {
>  		level = LOGLEVEL_DEFAULT;
> @@ -1641,7 +1641,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  	/*
>  	 * Ouch, printk recursed into itself!
>  	 */
> -	if (unlikely(logbuf_cpu == this_cpu)) {
> +	if (unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(logbuf_cpu) == this_cpu)) {
>  		/*
>  		 * If a crash is occurring during printk() on this CPU,
>  		 * then try to get the crash message out but make sure
> @@ -1659,7 +1659,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  
>  	lockdep_off();
>  	raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> -	logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
> +	ACCESS_ONCE(logbuf_cpu) = this_cpu;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(recursion_bug)) {
>  		static const char recursion_msg[] =
> @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ asmlinkage int vprintk_emit(int facility, int level,
>  						 dict, dictlen, text, text_len);
>  	}
>  
> -	logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> +	ACCESS_ONCE(logbuf_cpu) = UINT_MAX;
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>  	lockdep_on();
>  	local_irq_restore(flags);
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-14  4:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-14  3:21 [RFC PATCH] printk: Use ACCESS_ONCE() instead of a volatile type Pranith Kumar
2014-11-14  3:41 ` Joe Perches
2014-11-14  3:51   ` Steven Rostedt
2014-11-14  3:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-11-14  4:02   ` Pranith Kumar
2014-11-14  4:48 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2014-11-14  4:57   ` Steven Rostedt
2014-11-14  5:24     ` Steven Rostedt
2014-11-14 16:39       ` Alex Elder
2014-11-14 16:57         ` Steven Rostedt
2014-11-14 18:23         ` Pranith Kumar

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=546589A1.9040100@linaro.org \
    --to=elder@linaro.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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