From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20200718004427.GT3151642@magnolia>
References: <20200717044427.68747-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <20200717174750.GQ12769@casper.infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:52328 "EHLO
        aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727040AbgGRApF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 20:45:05 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200717174750.GQ12769@casper.infradead.org>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 06:47:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 09:44:27PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > +If that doesn't apply, you'll have to implement one-time init yourself.
> > +
> > +The simplest implementation just uses a mutex and an 'inited' flag.
> > +This implementation should be used where feasible:
> 
> I think some syntactic sugar should make it feasible for normal people
> to implement the most efficient version of this just like they use locks.
> 
> > +For the single-pointer case, a further optimized implementation
> > +eliminates the mutex and instead uses compare-and-exchange:
> > +
> > +	static struct foo *foo;
> > +
> > +	int init_foo_if_needed(void)
> > +	{
> > +		struct foo *p;
> > +
> > +		/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() below */
> > +		if (smp_load_acquire(&foo))
> > +			return 0;
> > +
> > +		p = alloc_foo();
> > +		if (!p)
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +		/* on success, pairs with smp_load_acquire() above and below */
> > +		if (cmpxchg_release(&foo, NULL, p) != NULL) {
> 
> Why do we have cmpxchg_release() anyway?  Under what circumstances is
> cmpxchg() useful _without_ having release semantics?
> 
> > +			free_foo(p);
> > +			/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() above */
> > +			smp_load_acquire(&foo);
> > +		}
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> 
> How about something like this ...
> 
> once.h:
> 
> static struct init_once_pointer {
> 	void *p;
> };
> 
> static inline void *once_get(struct init_once_pointer *oncep)
> { ... }
> 
> static inline bool once_store(struct init_once_pointer *oncep, void *p)
> { ... }
> 
> --- foo.c ---
> 
> struct foo *get_foo(gfp_t gfp)
> {
> 	static struct init_once_pointer my_foo;
> 	struct foo *foop;
> 
> 	foop = once_get(&my_foo);
> 	if (foop)
> 		return foop;
> 
> 	foop = alloc_foo(gfp);
> 	if (!once_store(&my_foo, foop)) {
> 		free_foo(foop);
> 		foop = once_get(&my_foo);
> 	}
> 
> 	return foop;
> }
> 
> Any kernel programmer should be able to handle that pattern.  And no mutex!

That would be even better.

--D