|
@Jonathan_Blow | |||||
|
So I am doing it, but, it doesn't feel totally good to me.
P.S. What is the best practice for getting tsan to shut up if there is an actual data race that you intend to be there and is fine (e.g. a thread polls a location to see if a value shows up there), without
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Jonathan Blow
@Jonathan_Blow
|
2. velj |
|
So I am using ThreadSanitizer, and I find myself cleaning up data races that don't matter, in order to keep the output clean. (For example, an atomic set of a flag, where another thread reads that flag word, but doesn't care about that flag). On the one hand,
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jonathan Blow
@Jonathan_Blow
|
2. velj |
|
this means the diagnostics will be clean from spurious data races, which helps us spot real races. But on the other hand, it can have negative performance impacts on the code, for example by increasing memory use as I introduce more flag words.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jonathan Blow
@Jonathan_Blow
|
2. velj |
|
It reminds me a little bit of Warning Cleanup Theatre from the 1990s and 2000s (and probably today), where people insert a bunch of casts into their code and now there are no more warnings, so The Code Must Be Better Now With All These Casts. Except data races are more serious.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jonathan Blow
@Jonathan_Blow
|
2. velj |
|
doing something that might cause you to miss a real problem later?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jonathan Müller
@foonathan
|
2. velj |
|
I don't know what you're doing, but unless you use atomics or barriers or something, there is no guarantee the thread will actually see an updated value.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jonathan Blow
@Jonathan_Blow
|
2. velj |
|
Hmm that is a good point.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Alastair Houghton
@al45tair
|
2. velj |
|
You can use blacklist or suppression files; see github.com/google/sanitiz…
|
||
|
|
||