From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>
To: "FUJITA Tomonori" <fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
Cc: <a.hindborg@kernel.org>, <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
<ojeda@kernel.org>, <aliceryhl@google.com>,
<anna-maria@linutronix.de>, <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
<boqun.feng@gmail.com>, <frederic@kernel.org>, <gary@garyguo.net>,
<jstultz@google.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<lossin@kernel.org>, <lyude@redhat.com>,
<rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>, <sboyd@kernel.org>,
<tglx@linutronix.de>, <tmgross@umich.edu>, <acourbot@nvidia.com>,
<daniel.almeida@collabora.com>, "Fiona Behrens" <me@kloenk.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] rust: Add read_poll_timeout functions
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:55:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DBZIBAUIBYNH.3I8AZG4I8I59E@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250811041039.3231548-3-fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
On Mon Aug 11, 2025 at 6:10 AM CEST, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> Add read_poll_timeout functions which poll periodically until a
> condition is met or a timeout is reached.
>
> The C's read_poll_timeout (include/linux/iopoll.h) is a complicated
> macro and a simple wrapper for Rust doesn't work. So this implements
> the same functionality in Rust.
>
> The C version uses usleep_range() while the Rust version uses
> fsleep(), which uses the best sleep method so it works with spans that
> usleep_range() doesn't work nicely with.
>
> The sleep_before_read argument isn't supported since there is no user
> for now. It's rarely used in the C version.
>
> read_poll_timeout() can only be used in a nonatomic context. This
> requirement is not checked by these abstractions, but it is intended
> that klint [1] or a similar tool will be used to check it in the
> future.
>
> Link: https://rust-for-linux.com/klint [1]
> Reviewed-by: Fiona Behrens <me@kloenk.dev>
> Tested-by: Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>
> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@gmail.com>
> ---
> rust/kernel/time.rs | 1 +
> rust/kernel/time/poll.rs | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hm, are we should this should go in the time module? I does use timekeeping
stuff, but not every user of timekeeping stuff should go under the time module.
This is rather I/O stuff and I'd expect it in rust/kernel/io/poll.rs instead.
> +/// Polls periodically until a condition is met or a timeout is reached.
> +///
> +/// The function repeatedly executes the given operation `op` closure and
> +/// checks its result using the condition closure `cond`.
> +///
> +/// If `cond` returns `true`, the function returns successfully with the result of `op`.
> +/// Otherwise, it waits for a duration specified by `sleep_delta`
> +/// before executing `op` again.
> +///
> +/// This process continues until either `cond` returns `true` or the timeout,
> +/// specified by `timeout_delta`, is reached. If `timeout_delta` is `None`,
> +/// polling continues indefinitely until `cond` evaluates to `true` or an error occurs.
> +///
> +/// This function can only be used in a nonatomic context.
> +///
> +/// # Examples
> +///
> +/// ```no_run
> +/// use kernel::io::Io;
> +/// use kernel::time::{poll::read_poll_timeout, Delta};
> +///
> +/// const HW_READY: u16 = 0x01;
> +///
> +/// fn wait_for_hardware<const SIZE: usize>(io: &Io<SIZE>) -> Result<()> {
> +/// // The `op` closure reads the value of a specific status register.
> +/// let op = || -> Result<u16> { io.try_read16(0x1000) };
> +///
> +/// // The `cond` closure takes a reference to the value returned by `op`
> +/// // and checks whether the hardware is ready.
> +/// let cond = |val: &u16| *val == HW_READY;
> +///
> +/// match read_poll_timeout(op, cond, Delta::from_millis(50), Some(Delta::from_secs(3))) {
> +/// Ok(_) => {
> +/// // The hardware is ready. The returned value of the `op`` closure isn't used.
> +/// Ok(())
> +/// }
> +/// Err(e) => Err(e),
> +/// }
> +/// }
> +/// ```
This is exactly what I had in mind, thanks!
> +/// ```rust
> +/// use kernel::sync::{SpinLock, new_spinlock};
> +/// use kernel::time::Delta;
> +/// use kernel::time::poll::read_poll_timeout;
> +///
> +/// let lock = KBox::pin_init(new_spinlock!(()), kernel::alloc::flags::GFP_KERNEL)?;
> +/// let g = lock.lock();
> +/// read_poll_timeout(|| Ok(()), |()| true, Delta::from_micros(42), Some(Delta::from_micros(42)));
I assume you want to demonstrate misuse from atomic contex here? I'd rather not
do so. But if we really want that, there should be a *very* obvious comment
about this being wrong somewhere.
> +/// drop(g);
> +///
> +/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
> +/// ```
> +#[track_caller]
> +pub fn read_poll_timeout<Op, Cond, T>(
> + mut op: Op,
> + mut cond: Cond,
> + sleep_delta: Delta,
> + timeout_delta: Option<Delta>,
> +) -> Result<T>
> +where
> + Op: FnMut() -> Result<T>,
> + Cond: FnMut(&T) -> bool,
> +{
> + let start: Instant<Monotonic> = Instant::now();
> + let sleep = !sleep_delta.is_zero();
> +
> + // Unlike the C version, we always call `might_sleep()`.
I think we should explain why, i.e. the argument about being error prone, clear
separation of read_poll_timeout() and read_poll_timeout_atomic() for klint, etc.
(I also think the C version should not have done this conditionally to begin
with.)
> + might_sleep();
> +
> + loop {
> + let val = op()?;
> + if cond(&val) {
> + // Unlike the C version, we immediately return.
> + // We know the condition is met so we don't need to check again.
> + return Ok(val);
> + }
> + if let Some(timeout_delta) = timeout_delta {
> + if start.elapsed() > timeout_delta {
> + // Unlike the C version, we immediately return.
> + // We have just called `op()` so we don't need to call it again.
> + return Err(ETIMEDOUT);
> + }
> + }
> + if sleep {
> + fsleep(sleep_delta);
> + }
> + // fsleep() could be busy-wait loop so we always call cpu_relax().
> + cpu_relax();
> + }
> +}
> --
> 2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-11 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-11 4:10 [PATCH v1 0/2] rust: Add read_poll_timeout FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 4:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] rust: Add cpu_relax() helper FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 9:39 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-08-14 6:12 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 10:45 ` Andreas Hindborg
2025-08-11 4:10 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] rust: Add read_poll_timeout functions FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 9:50 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-08-14 6:11 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-14 8:26 ` Alice Ryhl
2025-08-17 4:21 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 9:55 ` Danilo Krummrich [this message]
2025-08-11 10:32 ` Andreas Hindborg
2025-08-14 6:29 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2025-08-11 10:47 ` Andreas Hindborg
2025-08-13 2:56 ` Alexandre Courbot
2025-08-14 6:39 ` FUJITA Tomonori
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DBZIBAUIBYNH.3I8AZG4I8I59E@kernel.org \
--to=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=a.hindborg@kernel.org \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=alex.gaynor@gmail.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.almeida@collabora.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@gmail.com \
--cc=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lossin@kernel.org \
--cc=lyude@redhat.com \
--cc=me@kloenk.dev \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tmgross@umich.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).