From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timekeeping] 5aa6c43eca: BUG:KCSAN:data-race_in_timekeeping_debug_get_ns/timekeeping_update_from_shadow
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:53:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o730wnl3.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875xp9xiz9.ffs@tglx>
On Thu, Oct 31 2024 at 00:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30 2024 at 15:16, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 1:50 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 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.
Nah. It's irrelevant now too. Before the time getters gained the math
overflow handling this definitely was a problem, but now it's just
noise. timekeeping_advance() can handle that case correctly.
Thanks,
tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-31 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-30 5:47 [tip:timers/core] [timekeeping] 5aa6c43eca: BUG:KCSAN:data-race_in_timekeeping_debug_get_ns/timekeeping_update_from_shadow kernel test robot
2024-10-30 8:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-10-30 9:46 ` Marco Elver
2024-10-30 22:16 ` John Stultz
2024-10-30 23:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-10-31 10:53 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
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=87o730wnl3.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@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