On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 7:20 PM Sabrina Dubroca [off-list ref] wrote:

2026-01-22, 02:22:49 +0800, Yangfl wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 1:23 AM Sabrina Dubroca [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

2026-01-20, 17:21:29 +0800, David Yang wrote:

quoted

The following (anti-)pattern was observed in the code tree:

        do {
                start = u64_stats_fetch_begin(&pstats->syncp);
                memcpy(&temp, &pstats->stats, sizeof(temp));
        } while (u64_stats_fetch_retry(&pstats->syncp, start));

On 64bit arches, struct u64_stats_sync is empty and provides no help
against load/store tearing, especially for memcpy(), for which arches may
provide their highly-optimized implements.

In theory the affected code should convert to u64_stats_t, or use
READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() properly.

However since there are needs to copy chunks of statistics, instead of
writing loops at random places, we provide a safe memcpy() variant for
u64_stats.

Signed-off-by: David Yang <mmyangfl@gmail.com>
---
 include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h b/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h
index 457879938fc1..849ff6e159c6 100644
--- a/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h
+++ b/include/linux/u64_stats_sync.h

@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ static inline u64 u64_stats_read(const u64_stats_t *p)
      return local64_read(&p->v);
 }

+static inline void *u64_stats_copy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t len)
+{
+     BUILD_BUG_ON(len % sizeof(u64_stats_t));
+     for (size_t i = 0; i < len / sizeof(u64_stats_t); i++)
+             ((u64 *)dst)[i] = local64_read(&((local64_t *)src)[i]);

Maybe u64_stats_read/u64_stats_t instead of local64_read/local64_t?

I think casting to u64_stats_t is a bit overkill here since we accept
const void * and we are the actual implementation.

It would be a bit more consistent. Just within this function you have
2 lines using u64_stats_t and the 3rd uses local64_t. And reusing
types/helpers within a similar context doesn't seem overkill.


[...]

quoted

quoted

Since this new helper is always used within a
u64_stats_fetch_begin/u64_stats_fetch_retry loop, maybe it would be
nicer to push the retry loop into the helper as well?  Not a strong
opinion. It would be a bit "simpler" for the callers, but your current
proposal has the advantage of looking like memcpy(), and of also
looking (for the caller) like other retry loops fetching each counter
explicitly.

The callers may want to copy other discontinuous data as well, albeit
no one did it then.

I'm not sure why they would. I think the main point of using memcpy is
"I don't want to copy each counter by name one by one", and possibly
"I don't want to have to patch this code as well if we add a new
counter". If you already have a batch copy for a bunch of counters,
it's usually easier to add others in a contiguous block.

While I agree with your statement, I don't think it's a good idea to
push the retry loop into the helper. u64_stats_copy(syncp, dst, src,
len) would be a strange API, while no others accept syncp argument.
Also, it would give a false appearance to those who read the driver
code, since it does not involve fetch_begin()/fetch_retry()
explicitly.

In my opinion, it would be better to introduce a for-like macro
#define with_u64_stats_fetch(syncp), eliminating two function calls as
well as one variable declaration altogether.