Re: [PATCH] seqlock: Use WRITE_ONCE() when updating sequence

From: Waiman Long
Date: Wed Dec 18 2024 - 11:10:19 EST


On 12/18/24 10:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:30:39PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
On 12/17/24 6:17 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
`sequence` is a concurrently accessed shared variable on the reader
side. Therefore, it needs to be wrapped in WRITE_ONCE() in order to
prevent unwanted compiler optimizations like store tearing.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/seqlock.h | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
index 5298765d6ca4..f4c6f2507742 100644
--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static inline void __seqcount_init(seqcount_t *s, const char *name,
* Make sure we are not reinitializing a held lock:
*/
lockdep_init_map(&s->dep_map, name, key, 0);
- s->sequence = 0;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, 0);
}
The init function certainly doesn't need to use WRITE_ONCE().
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ do { \
static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(seqcount_t *s)
{
kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
- s->sequence++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
smp_wmb();
}
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ do { \
static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
{
smp_wmb();
- s->sequence++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
}
@@ -548,9 +548,9 @@ static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
static inline void do_raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
{
kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
- s->sequence++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
smp_wmb();
- s->sequence++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 1);
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
}
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static inline void do_write_seqcount_invalidate(seqcount_t *s)
{
smp_wmb();
kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
- s->sequence+=2;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->sequence, READ_ONCE(s->sequence) + 2);
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
}
@@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ read_seqcount_latch_retry(const seqcount_latch_t *s, unsigned start)
static __always_inline void raw_write_seqcount_latch(seqcount_latch_t *s)
{
smp_wmb(); /* prior stores before incrementing "sequence" */
- s->seqcount.sequence++;
+ WRITE_ONCE(s->seqcount.sequence, READ_ONCE(s->seqcount.sequence) + 1);
smp_wmb(); /* increment "sequence" before following stores */
}
For seqcount, its actual value isn't important. What is important is whether
the value changes and whether it is even or odd. So even if store tearing is
happening, it shouldn't affect its operation. I doubt we need to use
WRITE_ONCE() here. Could you come up with a scenario where store tearing
will make it behave incorrectly?
But why expand the state space?
I don't quite get what you mean by "state space".

Also, there are potentially "optimizations" other than store tearing.
No, I haven't seen them yet, but then again, there were a great many
optimizations that were not being used back when I started coding C.

All the inc's are bounded by smp_wmb()'s which should limit the kind of optimizations that can be done by the compiler. That is why I don't see a need to use WRITE_ONCE() here. Of course, there may be some corner cases that I may miss. So I ask for whether such a case exists.

Cheers,
Longman