diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt | 10 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt index 65778222183e..f531b0837356 100644 --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt @@ -6,7 +6,8 @@ normal accesses to shared memory, that is "normal" as in accesses that do not use read-modify-write atomic operations. It also describes how to document these accesses, both with comments and with special assertions processed by the Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer (KCSAN). This discussion -builds on an earlier LWN article [1]. +builds on an earlier LWN article [1] and Linux Foundation mentorship +session [2]. ACCESS-MARKING OPTIONS @@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ example: WRITE_ONCE(a, b + data_race(c + d) + READ_ONCE(e)); Neither plain C-language accesses nor data_race() (#1 and #2 above) place -any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [2]. +any sort of constraint on the compiler's choice of optimizations [3]. In contrast, READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() (#3 and #4 above) restrict the compiler's use of code-motion and common-subexpression optimizations. Therefore, if a given access is involved in an intentional data race, @@ -594,5 +595,8 @@ REFERENCES [1] "Concurrency bugs should fear the big bad data-race detector (part 2)" https://lwn.net/Articles/816854/ -[2] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?" +[2] "The Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer" + https://www.linuxfoundation.org/webinars/the-kernel-concurrency-sanitizer + +[3] "Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?" https://lwn.net/Articles/793253/ |