Re: [PATCH 8/8] membarrier: Rewrite sync_core_before_usermode() and improve documentation

Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-06-18T20:12:19Z

----- On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jun 17, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:
>>
>> > On 6/17/21 7:47 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please change back this #ifndef / #else / #endif within function for
>> >>
>> >> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE)) {
>> >> ...
>> >> } else {
>> >> ...
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> I don't think mixing up preprocessor and code logic makes it more readable.
>> >
>> > I agree, but I don't know how to make the result work well.
>> > membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode() isn't defined in the !IS_ENABLED
>> > case, so either I need to fake up a definition or use #ifdef.
>> >
>> > If I faked up a definition, I would want to assert, at build time, that
>> > it isn't called. I don't think we can do:
>> >
>> > static void membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode()
>> > {
>> > BUILD_BUG_IF_REACHABLE();
>> > }
>>
>> Let's look at the context here:
>>
>> static void ipi_sync_core(void *info)
>> {
>> [....]
>> membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode()
>> }
>>
>> ^ this can be within #ifdef / #endif
>>
>> static int membarrier_private_expedited(int flags, int cpu_id)
>> [...]
>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE))
>> return -EINVAL;
>> if (!(atomic_read(&mm->membarrier_state) &
>> MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE_READY))
>> return -EPERM;
>> ipi_func = ipi_sync_core;
>>
>> All we need to make the line above work is to define an empty ipi_sync_core
>> function in the #else case after the ipi_sync_core() function definition.
>>
>> Or am I missing your point ?
>
> Maybe?
>
> My objection is that an empty ipi_sync_core is a lie — it doesn’t sync the core.
> I would be fine with that if I could have the compiler statically verify that
> it’s not called, but I’m uncomfortable having it there if the implementation is
> actively incorrect.

I see. Another approach would be to implement a "setter" function to populate
"ipi_func". That setter function would return -EINVAL in its #ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE
implementation.

Would that be better ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.