diff mbox series

[RFC,08/21] Revert "list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when initializing list_head structures"

Message ID 20200324153643.15527-9-will@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Improve list integrity checking | expand

Commit Message

Will Deacon March 24, 2020, 3:36 p.m. UTC
This reverts commit 2f073848c3cc8aff2655ab7c46d8c0de90cf4e50.

There is no need to use WRITE_ONCE() to initialise a non-RCU 'list_head'.

Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/list.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Paul E. McKenney March 30, 2020, 11:25 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 03:36:30PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> This reverts commit 2f073848c3cc8aff2655ab7c46d8c0de90cf4e50.
> 
> There is no need to use WRITE_ONCE() to initialise a non-RCU 'list_head'.
> 
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

And attention to lockless uses of list_empty() here, correct?

Depending on the outcome of discussions on 3/21, I should have added in
all three cases.

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
>  include/linux/list.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
> index c7331c259792..b86a3f9465d4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/list.h
> +++ b/include/linux/list.h
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>   */
>  static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD(struct list_head *list)
>  {
> -	WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list);
> +	list->next = list;
>  	list->prev = list;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>
Will Deacon March 31, 2020, 1:11 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:25:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 03:36:30PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > This reverts commit 2f073848c3cc8aff2655ab7c46d8c0de90cf4e50.
> > 
> > There is no need to use WRITE_ONCE() to initialise a non-RCU 'list_head'.
> > 
> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> 
> And attention to lockless uses of list_empty() here, correct?
> 
> Depending on the outcome of discussions on 3/21, I should have added in
> all three cases.

Yes, patch 3 is where this will get sorted. It looks like we'll have to
disable KCSAN around the READ_ONCE() over there, but I also need to finish
wrapping my head around list_empty_careful() because I'm deeply suspicious!

Will
Paul E. McKenney March 31, 2020, 1:47 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:11:54PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:25:05PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 03:36:30PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 2f073848c3cc8aff2655ab7c46d8c0de90cf4e50.
> > > 
> > > There is no need to use WRITE_ONCE() to initialise a non-RCU 'list_head'.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > 
> > And attention to lockless uses of list_empty() here, correct?
> > 
> > Depending on the outcome of discussions on 3/21, I should have added in
> > all three cases.
> 
> Yes, patch 3 is where this will get sorted. It looks like we'll have to
> disable KCSAN around the READ_ONCE() over there, but I also need to finish
> wrapping my head around list_empty_careful() because I'm deeply suspicious!

At the very least, it does have the disadvantage of touching an additional
cache line, and up to two additional cache lines in the non-empty case.  :-(

							Thanx, Paul
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/list.h b/include/linux/list.h
index c7331c259792..b86a3f9465d4 100644
--- a/include/linux/list.h
+++ b/include/linux/list.h
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ 
  */
 static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD(struct list_head *list)
 {
-	WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list);
+	list->next = list;
 	list->prev = list;
 }