jansvoboda11 marked 3 inline comments as done.
jansvoboda11 added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/Tooling/DependencyScanning/DependencyScanningFilesystem.h:106-108
+ std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer> OriginalContents;
+ std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer> MinimizedContents;
PreprocessorSkippedRangeMapping PPSkippedRangeMapping;
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> jansvoboda11 wrote:
> > dexonsmith wrote:
> > > I'm finding it a bit subtle detecting if there are races on access /
> > > setting of these, but I think it's correct.
> > > - I think I verified that they are "set once".
> > > - All the setters are guarded by locks.
> > > - The first getter per "local" cache is guarded by a lock.
> > > - Subsequent getters are not.
> > >
> > > The key question: are the subsequent getters ONLY used when the first
> > > getter was successful?
> > >
> > > One way to make it more obvious:
> > > ```
> > > lang=c++
> > > struct ContentWithPPRanges {
> > > std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer> Content;
> > > PreprocessorSkippedRangeMapping PPSkippedRangeMapping;
> > > };
> > >
> > > private:
> > > // Always accessed,mutated under a lock. Not mutated after they escape.
> > > std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer> Original;
> > > std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer> Minimized;
> > > PreprocessorSkippedRangeMapping PPSkippedRangeMapping;
> > >
> > > // Used in getters. Pointed-at memory immutable after these are set.
> > > std::atomic<const llvm::MemoryBuffer *> OriginalAccess;
> > > std::atomic<const llvm::MemoryBuffer *> MinimizedAccess;
> > > std::atomic<const PreprocessorSkippedRangeMapping *> PPRangesAccess;
> > > ```
> > > I don't think this is the only approach though.
> > >
> > I think there are no races on the original contents. The pointer is
> > unconditionally set on creation of `CachedFileSystemEntry` under a lock
> > that no threads get past without having set the pointer (or failing and
> > never accessing the pointer).
> >
> > For minimized contents, the latest revision adds check at the beginning of
> > the main function (`needsMinimization`) outside the critical section. There
> > are three paths I can think of:
> > * The check returns `true` in thread A (pointer is `null`), thread A enters
> > critical section, minimizes the contents and initializes the pointer.
> > * The check returns `true` in thread A, but thread B entered the critical
> > section, minimized contents and initialized the pointer. When thread A
> > enters the critical section, it performs the check again, figures that out
> > and skips minimization.
> > * The check returns `false` and the local cache entry is returned.
> >
> > So there definitely is a race here, but I believe it's benign. Do you
> > agree? Do you think it's worth addressing?
> I don't trust myself to evaluate whether it's benign, but if there's no
> atomic mutation, then I think it's possible that when the setter changes a
> value from "x" to "y" then the racing reader can see a third value "z". You
> might gain some confidence by using `-fsanitize=thread` on a workload that's
> going to include this sort of thing -- probably hard to exercise: PCH already
> exists, try minimizing something that uses the PCH, and then try minimizing
> something that doesn't.
>
> I'd rather just avoid the race entirely so we don't need to guess though.
Interesting...
After reading up on this a bit, my understanding is that reads of
`MinimizedContents` cannot be torn, because it's pointers-sized and aligned. So
we should never see a third value "z". Am I wrong?
The potential data race is IMO somewhat independent from the read tearing
aspect and is avoided by defensively checking `MinimizedContents` again under
lock.
To confirm, I ran the following test case with and without thread sanitizer,
never seeing data races or incorrect results.
{F20978137}
I'm happy to use the `std::atomic` pattern you suggested, but I want to be sure
I understand why that's necessary.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115346/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D115346
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
