Re: bit fields && data tearing

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/13, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2014-07-12 at 22:51 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > OK, looks like this is compiler bug,
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52080
> >
> > Thanks to Dan who informed me privately.
>
> So yes, there's is this compiler bug which means a bitfield
> access can cause a r-m-w access to a neighbouring field

Thanks. So I can forward this all back to bugzilla.

> but
> in general, I would be weary of bitfields anyway since accessing
> them isn't going to be atomic anyway... it's too easy to get things
> wrong and in most cases the benefit is yet to be demonstrated.

Sure, bit fields should be used with care. But the same arguments apply
to bitmasks, they are often used without "atomic" set/clear_bit.

> In your example, I don't see the point of the bitfield.

This is just test-case. The real code has more adjacent bit fields, only
the tracee can modify them, and only debugger can change ->freeze_stop.

Thanks,

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/