Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: 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>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 03:13:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20200718021304.GS12769@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200718013839.GD2183@sol.localdomain>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 06:38:39PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Note that the cmpxchg version is not necessarily the "most efficient".
> 
> If the one-time initialization is expensive, e.g. if it allocates a lot of
> memory or if takes a long time, it could be better to use the mutex version so
> that at most one task does it.

Sure, but I think those are far less common than just allocating a single
thing.

> > 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!
> 
> I don't think this version would be worthwhile.  It eliminates type safety due
> to the use of 'void *', and doesn't actually save any lines of code.  Nor does
> it eliminate the need to correctly implement the cmpxchg failure case, which is
> tricky (it must free the object and get the new one) and will be rarely tested.

You're missing the point.  It prevents people from trying to optimise
"can I use READ_ONCE() here, or do I need to use smp_rmb()?"  The type
safety is provided by the get_foo() function.  I suppose somebody could
play some games with _Generic or something, but there's really no need to.
It's like using a list_head and casting to the container_of.

> It also forces all users of the struct to use this helper function to access it.
> That could be considered a good thing, but it's also bad because even with
> one-time init there's still usually some sort of ordering of "initialization"
> vs. "use".  Just taking a random example I'm familiar with, we do one-time init
> of inode::i_crypt_info when we open an encrypted file, so we guarantee it's set
> for all I/O to the file, where we then simply access ->i_crypt_info directly.
> We don't want the code to read like it's initializing ->i_crypt_info in the
> middle of ->writepages(), since that would be wrong.

Right, and I wouldn't use this pattern for that.  You can't get to
writepages without having opened the file, so just initialising the
pointer in open is fine.

> An improvement might be to make once_store() take the free function as a
> parameter so that it would handle the failure case for you:
> 
> struct foo *get_foo(gfp_t gfp)
> {
> 	static struct init_once_pointer my_foo;
> 	struct foo *foop;
>  
>  	foop = once_get(&my_foo);
>  	if (!foop) {
> 		foop = alloc_foo(gfp);
> 		if (foop)
> 			once_store(&my_foo, foop, free_foo);

Need to mark once_store as __must_check to avoid the bug you have here:

			foop = once_store(&my_foo, foop, free_foo);

Maybe we could use a macro for once_store so we could write:

void *once_get(struct init_pointer_once *);
int once_store(struct init_pointer_once *, void *);

#define once_alloc(s, o_alloc, o_free) ({                               \
        void *__p = o_alloc;                                            \
        if (__p) {                                                      \
                if (!once_store(s, __p)) {                              \
                        o_free(__p);                                    \
                        __p = once_get(s);                              \
                }                                                       \
        }                                                               \
        __p;                                                            \
})

---

struct foo *alloc_foo(gfp_t);
void free_foo(struct foo *);

struct foo *get_foo(gfp_t gfp)
{
        static struct init_pointer_once my_foo;
        struct foo *foop;

        foop = once_get(&my_foo);
        if (!foop)
                foop = once_alloc(&my_foo, alloc_foo(gfp), free_foo);
        return foop;
}

That's pretty hard to misuse (I compile-tested it, and it works).

  reply index

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-17  4:44 Eric Biggers
2020-07-17  5:49 ` Sedat Dilek
2020-07-17 12:35 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-17 14:26 ` Alan Stern
2020-07-17 17:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-17 17:51   ` Alan Stern
2020-07-18  1:02     ` Eric Biggers
2020-07-27 12:51       ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-17 21:05   ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-18  0:44   ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-18  1:38   ` Eric Biggers
2020-07-18  2:13     ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2020-07-18  5:28       ` Eric Biggers
2020-07-18 14:35         ` Alan Stern
2020-07-20  2:07         ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-20  9:00           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-27 15:17         ` Alan Stern
2020-07-27 15:28           ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-27 16:01             ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-27 16:31             ` Alan Stern
2020-07-27 16:59               ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-27 19:13                 ` Alan Stern
2020-07-17 20:53 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-18  0:58   ` Eric Biggers
2020-07-18  1:25     ` Alan Stern
2020-07-18  1:40       ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-18  2:00       ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-18 14:21         ` Alan Stern
2020-07-18  2:00       ` Eric Biggers
2020-07-18  1:42 ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-18 14:08   ` Alan Stern
2020-07-20  1:33     ` Dave Chinner
2020-07-20 14:52       ` Alan Stern
2020-07-20 15:37         ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-07-20 15:39         ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-07-20 16:04           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-20 16:48             ` peterz
2020-07-20 22:06               ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-07-20 16:12           ` Alan Stern

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=20200718021304.GS12769@casper.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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

Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/0 linux-fsdevel/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-fsdevel linux-fsdevel/ https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel \
		linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-fsdevel

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git