Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
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>,
	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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:28:27 +0100
Message-ID: <20200727152827.GM23808@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200727151746.GC1468275@rowland.harvard.edu>

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:17:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Given a type "T", an object x of type pointer-to-T, and a function
> "func" that takes various arguments and returns a pointer-to-T, the
> accepted API for calling func once would be to create once_func() as
> follows:
> 
> T *once_func(T **ppt, args...)
> {
> 	static DEFINE_MUTEX(mut);
> 	T *p;
> 
> 	p = smp_load_acquire(ppt);	/* Mild optimization */
> 	if (p)
> 		return p;
> 
> 	mutex_lock(mut);
> 	p = smp_load_acquire(ppt);
> 	if (!p) {
> 		p = func(args...);
> 		if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(p))
> 			smp_store_release(ppt, p);
> 	}
> 	mutex_unlock(mut);
> 	return p;
> }
> 
> Users then would have to call once_func(&x, args...) and check the
> result.  Different x objects would constitute different "once"
> domains.
[...]
> In fact, the only drawback I can think of is that because this relies
> on a single mutex for all the different possible x's, it might lead to
> locking conflicts (if func had to call once_func() recursively, for
> example).  In most reasonable situations such conflicts would not
> arise.

Another drawback for this approach relative to my get_foo() approach
upthread is that, because we don't have compiler support, there's no
enforcement that accesses to 'x' go through once_func().  My approach
wraps accesses in a deliberately-opaque struct so you have to write
some really ugly code to get at the raw value, and it's just easier to
call get_foo().

  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
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 [this message]
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=20200727152827.GM23808@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