From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60172)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <cota@braap.org>) id 1bulYP-0003iL-Bc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:20:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <cota@braap.org>) id 1bulYJ-0005TU-A8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:20:32 -0400
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:55224)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <cota@braap.org>) id 1bulYG-0005NK-U9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:20:27 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:20:15 -0400
From: "Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>
Message-ID: <20161013192015.GA22617@flamenco>
References: <1476107947-31430-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1476107947-31430-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1476107947-31430-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] cpus: use atomic_read to read
 seqlock-protected variables
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, alex.bennee@linaro.org

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 15:59:04 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> There is a data race if the variable is written concurrently to the
> read.  In C11 this has undefined behavior.  Use atomic_read.  The
> write side does not need atomic_set, because it is protected by a
> mutex.

Is tsan happy with the way seqlocks are written right now?

According to this message I just found by Dmitry Vyukov, tsan
shouldn't be. Note however that the message is from April'15,
so it might be outdated:

Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> 1. Tsan is bad at handling stand-alone memory barriers. 
<snip>
> And here is a way to express seqlock that is both correct, is 
> understood by tsan and is no overhead on x86: 
> 
> // writer 
> atomic_store(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_relaxed); 
> atomic_store(&data[0], ..., memory_order_release); 
> ... 
> atomic_store(&data[N], ..., memory_order_release); 
> atomic_store(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_release); 
> 
> // reader 
> atomic_load(&seq, memory_order_acquire); 
> d0 = atomic_load(&data[0], memory_order_acquire); 
> ... 
> dN = atomic_load(&data[N], memory_order_acquire); 
> atomic_load(&seq, memory_order_relaxed); 

Source: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/thread-sanitizer/B4i9EMQ4BQE

Thanks,

		Emilio