Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: rcu: Add cautionary note on plain-accesses to requirements

[Alan Huang <mmpgouride@gmail.com>]

>> Yes, a write-write data race where the value is the same is also fine.
>> 
>> But they are still data race, if the compiler is within its right to do anything it likes (due to data race),
>> we still need WRITE_ONCE() in these cases, though it’s semantically safe.
>> 
>> IIUC, even with _ONCE(), the compiler is within its right do anything according to the standard (at least before the upcoming C23), because the standard doesn’t consider a volatile access to be atomic.
> 
> Volatile accesses are not specified very well in the standard.  However,
> as a practical matter, compilers that wish to be able to device drivers
> (whether in kernels or userspace applications) must compile those volatile
> accesses in such a way to allow reliable device drivers to be written.
> 
>> However, the kernel consider the volatile access to be atomic, right?
> 
> The compiler must therefore act as if a volatile access to an aligned
> machine-word size location is atomic.  To see this, consider accesses
> to memory that is shared by a device driver and that device's firmware,
> both of which are written in either C or C++.

I learned these things a few months ago. But still thank you!

The real problem is that there may be a data race at line 5, so Joel is correct that the compiler
can cache the value loaded from line 5 according to the standard given that the standard says that
a data race result in undefined behavior, so the compiler might be allowed to do anything. But from the
perspective of the kernel, line 5 is likely a diagnostic read, so it’s fine without READ_ONCE() and the
compiler is not allowed to cache the value.

This situation is like the volatile access.

Am I missing something?

> 
> Does that help?
> 
> Thanx, Paul
> 
>> BTW, line 5 in the example is likely to be optimized away. And yes, the compiler can cache the value loaded from line 5 from the perspective of undefined behavior, even if I believe it would be a compiler bug from the perspective of kernel.
>> 
>>> result will not change the semantics of the program. But otherwise,
>>> that's bad.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/#Store%20Tearing
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> - Joel
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +plain accesses of a memory location with rcu_dereference() of the same memory
>>>>>>> +location, in code involved in a data race.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> In short, updaters use rcu_assign_pointer() and readers use
>>>>>>> rcu_dereference(), and these two RCU API elements work together to
>>>>>>> ensure that readers have a consistent view of newly added data elements.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 2.41.0.585.gd2178a4bd4-goog