Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 11:08:31 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, bristot@redhat.com, jbaron@akamai.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 14/17] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
Message-ID: <20200327100831.GT20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200324135603.483964896@infradead.org>
 <20200324142246.127013582@infradead.org>
 <10ef25bf-87df-6917-1d50-c29ece442766@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10ef25bf-87df-6917-1d50-c29ece442766@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 24/03/2020 14.56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Extend the static_call infrastructure to optimize the following common
> > pattern:
> > 
> > 	if (func_ptr)
> > 		func_ptr(args...)
> > 
> 
> > +#define DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, _func)				\
> > +	DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(name, _func);				\
> > +	struct static_call_key STATIC_CALL_NAME(name) = {		\
> > +		.func = NULL,						\
> > +	}
> > +
> >  #define static_call(name)						\
> >  	((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func))
> >  
> > +#define static_cond_call(name)						\
> > +	if (STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func)				\
> > +		((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func))
> > +
> 
> What, apart from fear of being ridiculed by kernel folks, prevents the
> compiler from reloading STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func ? IOW, doesn't this
> want a READ_ONCE somewhere?

Hurmph.. I suspect you're quite right, but at the same time I can't seem
to write a macro that does that :/ Let me try harder.

> And please remind me, what is the consensus for sizeof(long) loads: does
> static_call() need load-tearing protection or not?

We all like to believe compilers are broken when they tear naturally
aligned words, but we're also not quite comfortable trusting that.