Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200501202849.647891881@infradead.org> <20200501202944.593400184@infradead.org>
 <1238787e-d97d-f09b-d76d-2df2dc273f4b@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <20200503125813.GL3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a53369f3-665a-af0e-efad-09ae456af847@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <20200504201445.GQ3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200505093625.GE5298@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200505093625.GE5298@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 11:13:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=cP8UCX0+5pZ3AqzvOM8LKzLJJ_heDhrghqJdOnHoGMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, bristot@redhat.com,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>
> HJ, Nick,
>
> Any chance any of you can see a way to make your respective compilers
> not emit utter junk for this?
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 10:14:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > https://godbolt.org/z/SDRG2q

Woah, a godbolt link! Now we're speaking the same language.  What were
you expecting? Us to remove the conditional check that a volatile read
wasn't NULL? (Not using READ_ONCE, produces the direct tail call I
suspect you're looking for, but am unsure if that's what you meant,
and understand that's not a solution).  I am simultaneously impressed
and disgusted by this btw, cool stuff.

i.e.
void *func = &name.func; \
rather than
void *func = READ_ONCE(name.func); \
(I'm surprised that `&name.func;` and `name.func;` also produce
different results).

> >
> > ---
> > #include <stddef.h>
> >
> >
> > #define READ_ONCE(var)                (*((volatile typeof(var) *)&(var)))
> > #define WRITE_ONCE(var, val)  (*((volatile typeof(var) *)&(var)) = (val))
> >
> > struct static_call_key {
> >       void *func;
> > };
> >
> > #define DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(name, func)       \
> >       extern struct static_call_key name; \
> >       extern typeof(func) __SCT__##name;
> >
> > #define DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, _func) \
> >       DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(name, _func) \
> >       struct static_call_key name = { \
> >               .func = NULL, \
> >       }
> >
> > static void __static_call_nop(void)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > #define __static_cond_call(name) \
> > ({ \
> >       void *func = READ_ONCE(name.func); \
> >       if (!func) \
> >               func = &__static_call_nop; \
> >       (typeof(__SCT__##name)*)func; \
> > })
> >
> > #define static_cond_call(name) (void)__static_cond_call(name)
> >
> > static void inline static_call_update(struct static_call_key *call, void *func)
> > {
> >       WRITE_ONCE(call->func, func);
> > }
> >
> > volatile int _x;
> >
> > void bar(int x)
> > {
> >       _x = x;
> > }
> >
> > DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(foo, bar);
> >
> > void ponies(int x)
> > {
> >       static_cond_call(foo)(x);
> > }


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers