From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B07EE19CC24 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730331310; cv=none; b=A2OuLcmKG7vUdJ9WdVCdDwfkO5xwvSTPIHCUbZhZaFAUB3DHB82VxCeDG3umXr1yzS7M3C7vRP0k/PRIdEAyp1IKvZem2ukCK4BsvbLiQS7CSaIVHGi/XasWdDiWAapeMolkzySCIFVqEr6xDFkNDneipGa1yxXdws/rPwo5xwY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730331310; c=relaxed/simple; bh=B0JnH3fWtHBJBnRW7ir5jY7H0YifrHSjpk08aNHXnoU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YWcXQX9AlLAYsh6hzrnCr4P3+8woH6V1JIksAnZdYsLxuGNYrH0p73CnFlE8xsD/6TVUYrnpCHnebBWrceUzhzDkXdOMwSOnOTrWI26kadBz2kbDc+OKt5qmkTBU28f7m8qg8fnmIua80VGytlmaPfBs3LmkXf5osFtzqfuclko= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=3UQ6Yjao; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=3xANON6g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="3UQ6Yjao"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="3xANON6g" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1730331307; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JuEPjoZNp/DdkiPVGMh5c0Da91iH6+YMDl/HeYiaNwQ=; b=3UQ6Yjaox7wPu1msX1jA3Wz24igjDSImEaQFxsjRL1aWq4NtgXzfR/JduOrD8QpYMRzflk bfmPG+Q1Dw5idBNpU9UxPbJyfp8mWHJu0mxJE/dkhfY4dPPk2SOPaH418++elQenJklgEt 1V9q2PB8ZNZS4lsId1bVjbpPwBDxxbYR6yzN3Mj2fZSrRUYDpQ0Wo4kuKifUTQbHKNQcSA tgVjWrMceTY03RqbOgP7xrWIK7HLEwzznrBzRAcBrYBwM8Mm1xcSRaeSvxx9k9/1PIo0kw DykSlKYwmU++x/HlQATtOaB7Op8bThSCnpCjVieacMK824DdJ+TvBLQpKK15Uw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1730331307; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JuEPjoZNp/DdkiPVGMh5c0Da91iH6+YMDl/HeYiaNwQ=; b=3xANON6gvXVCVph9OXyLP/3DwoA/njmqLLZvcMSHEV7vi24R3b/dF0CrD4xOHwxZ9ZrQDa dt2hb9Ym326Q81Bw== To: John Stultz Cc: kernel test robot , Anna-Maria Behnsen , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Marco Elver , Dmitry Vyukov , Frederic Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timekeeping] 5aa6c43eca: BUG:KCSAN:data-race_in_timekeeping_debug_get_ns/timekeeping_update_from_shadow In-Reply-To: References: <202410301316.e51421de-lkp@intel.com> <877c9qynxo.ffs@tglx> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 00:35:06 +0100 Message-ID: <875xp9xiz9.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 30 2024 at 15:16, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:50=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> But that aside, since 135225a363ae timekeeping_cycles_to_ns() is fully >> overflow protected and unconditionally handles negative motion (before >> it was x86 only), the value of timekeeping_debug_get_ns() becomes >> questionable. >> >> I'm leaning towards removing it completely. >> >> John? > > Yeah. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure of anyone beyond myself that > has really utilized the TIMEKEEPING_DEBUG logic (and I've not enabled > it myself in a few years). I don't think we've had any problem reports > from it either. > > So no objection from me. The question is whether we want to preserve the remaining 'offset' check. I.e. either discard it or make it unconditional? It's cheep now. Thanks, tglx