Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-54072-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:11:19 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>, "Peter
 Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC: <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "Jonathan
 Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>, "Fabio M. De Francesco"
	<fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2 v2] cleanup: Add cond_guard() to conditional guards
Message-ID: <65c16b16de625_d4122941c@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
References: <20240205142613.23914-1-fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
 <20240205142613.23914-2-fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
 <65c130d7c4c52_4e7f5294d3@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
 <65c15b025484f_3744792942a@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <65c15b025484f_3744792942a@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?e7/Pzkntzu+Enx346/PHvIi/ftOK+aFxFr/KtpeygtuOvsUqHKiSu7KZaLGO?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?O8k+ceJahXFPOVForRkzX53XGymGCCXBQCWZML3CHSZzgVmQ7BMji45BuJ8Q?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GcTI7ZSArjzl6ZCGL01yWMsWb4STm6v1phwqTmM3Amib47wvHN9Yqoo0ympp?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BkmdW0nlqCCKHjgmjS2g5UVU0kD4vDvp7PwagBvOFSD7I/gqChbrSbOd1mMF?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?UZ3PEPjldTsSUdMrlE+dC7nq80ey7x+kpTYqq8R+171nFW88iPnF3asW6Re2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jnZqys8XaHCPBBOeRx7QOCwEweXmy1ie+jwU/RkQwqo8Klh/Mv3BCzU6/0zU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6y61CVS5sCnM5DbWwy9Xk9ZnyybP5m5xiC5ML3uvE8F96nCYFUxE9D2iJg8+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/E4FnmDlkflFSG78r07LdHiO/UpqHi/piMM6CW5v5d1GtzsqrIBLKTmCMANm?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ljArgvL94ZDOfX3ojjlSj8Xk1by9L83JsOxFlPkGaKJyHQ+z7Thpik4SRTwJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ybzs4B/QDOOc4TPJxviam2N1DIU+0H8J6/wzsTFV7lpZrV+tgzfkN8npJAoN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Skbgowh7Kn3UZEAzOKZQ/zED60ZOXxnQua2yGXZrsSphkYoY4DhsRv9xxbP6?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?wruPLed01czQCXIJeeDFUmNK3pkXywXIGHQiX04nUxX/CFScJQkKJJB3J+15?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?EZuvTJ8hVnf8aj3yQEz8E1uuP68mb+kPvaXULxBWTIq16JHA9cNsHDyMjxZH?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?mQsu+gzstW92hii0Bw2zLNqPkiem3796cp1GIPRTvArhJKAz8wSU9QY62QeX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rEKXbRM/gVwprpsfOU2ljBKFvSWQUXUDsf458jIcG5IBn/ziPSsi4eyMSFWF?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TlqF3V0rrjfTKtWHTM2AsKlhRDQhULE3KHRa8H5e+Vkcqd3bsWalZUtNAWaK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?vupGhKeoJikC/MojUoTUJ0WjlyJFbKqHZEEKMrPPl+DsTLAXKsQMcOZqvAPU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/r0DWVXbuJDv+dl+QfB7NFUWx0R4R4GlzTgGd2HcpZspKfb0bXPbs1KD5Sm3?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?6ju9iEqnNFoAjodWC9TAcqiYLWlwaE6SaU3wugcl6wxbuRKlm8d6loeMpn17?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3NR+0R9SwOrkbhKulUOkWzwEyyxUhgAuiCxVwC6pzkThim0Cln/2h7QqR+d5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?HZHVsafN/JKpN55M8+2EcUeojc2dgNmVx7t/Ik63nd1Qo+KZLfb3xYRnK75J?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?syWz39PLr6SyI+SAHlOsqotGN/fDBDocsnWzMBT/M+f6VsoDMAn232t0ro9O?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?06KDX0BxkZo9IzKilFZ5sXp3pc2wZV7GMjE0yK7pTYzpw7CXF8znbjG5SbIF?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?y8esoeT2xJHM42NtFXcouoHykQKg/86b3dQByN6RfmCLAoaXpzgD81bBWbNM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jITL8CZ/YordhQjbzOMTWGWQv7fdZzwkyd/k/wzMcy5SVjp8aGjUmhGU/PxA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?iKo2LEHT25g0r3dtUzn6O1zsvZGLFayLahSPr9wTwUmJazI7QqZx2vQ85n9x?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?2kecLcLrweWeTGKTR076yLDbY+qeu91wPRxRhiExMrHExPnfllgD3Z1HqwWi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Vw=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 41c8139d-4b9c-4389-233b-08dc269fc496
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH8PR11MB8107.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2024 23:11:22.1309
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: j6kDxUOFhu3wVHHsEx2ZjkbWXZXRgcLAQ9cThrrIrxGMM/LwoAGyYTnZt8Uq35wFxF5f1bElelq/Ga4drHfpvT0gJP6S6NkIH6AtZxb0074=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN7PR11MB6969
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

Ira Weiny wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > Add cond_guard() macro to conditional guards.
> > > 
> > > cond_guard() is a guard to be used with the conditional variants of locks,
> > > like down_read_trylock() or mutex_lock_interruptible().
> > > 
> > > It takes a statement (or more statements in a block) that is passed to its
> > > second argument. That statement (or block) is executed if waiting for a
> > > lock is interrupted or if a _trylock() fails in case of contention.
> > > 
> > > Usage example:
> > > 
> > > 	cond_guard(rwsem_read_try, { printk(...); return 0; }, &semaphore);
> > > 
> > > Consistently with the other guards, locks are unlocked at the exit of the
> > > scope where cond_guard() is called.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/cleanup.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > > index c2d09bc4f976..88af56600325 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > > @@ -134,6 +134,16 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
> > >   *	an anonymous instance of the (guard) class, not recommended for
> > >   *	conditional locks.
> > >   *
> > > + * cond_guard(name, fail, args...):
> > > + *	a guard to be used with the conditional variants of locks, like
> > > + *	down_read_trylock() or mutex_lock_interruptible. 'fail' are one or more
> > > + *	statements that are executed when waiting for a lock is interrupted or
> > > + *	when a _trylock() fails in case of contention.
> > > + *
> > > + *	Example:
> > > + *
> > > + *		cond_guard(rwsem_read_try, { printk(...); return 0; }, &semaphore);
> > 
> > That _fail argument likely needs to be a statement expression for the
> > multi-statement case.
> 
> You mean ({ ... }) as discussed here?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/65c1578c76def_37447929456@iweiny-mobl.notmuch/

Yes.

> > > + *
> > >   * scoped_guard (name, args...) { }:
> > >   *	similar to CLASS(name, scope)(args), except the variable (with the
> > >   *	explicit name 'scope') is declard in a for-loop such that its scope is
> > > @@ -165,6 +175,10 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
> > >  
> > >  #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr
> > >  
> > > +#define cond_guard(_name, _fail, args...) \
> > > +	CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \
> > > +	if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) _fail
> > 
> > No, as I stated before this is broken for usages of:
> > 
> >     if () cond_guard() else if ()
> > 
> > The 'else' in the definition is critical, this builds for me (untested):
> 
> I did not test Fabios work directly but I don't understand this example.
> It seems like your suggestion does nothing useful.  The cond_guard()
> becomes a single statement like...
> 
> 	if ()
> 		cond_guard();
> 	else ...
> 
> ... And can't protect anything.

A sequence to acquire and drop a lock is sometimes a barrier semantic.
Is it typical, no, is it possible, yes. I otherwise do not understand
the need to include the subtle side effect.

> cond_guard() as defined, the ';' must be used as part of cond_guard() and
> should complete the internal macro 'if' statement.
> 
> I think this would work:
> 
> 	if () {
> 		cond_guard();
> 		... do locked stuff ...
> 	} else ...
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > index 88af56600325..665407498781 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
> >   *
> >   *	Example:
> >   *
> > - *		cond_guard(rwsem_read_try, { printk(...); return 0; }, &semaphore);
> > + *		cond_guard(rwsem_read_try, ({ printk(...); return 0; }), &semaphore);
> >   *
> >   * scoped_guard (name, args...) { }:
> >   *	similar to CLASS(name, scope)(args), except the variable (with the
> > @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
> >  
> >  #define cond_guard(_name, _fail, args...) \
> >  	CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \
> > -	if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) _fail
> > +	if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) _fail; \
> 
> Building on what I found for scoped_cond_guard() this should be
> 
> > +	if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) { _fail; }

That's still a dangling if () statement.

> 
> And drop the else.  The else needs to clearly be part of an outside if in
> your example.

Please just rely on a statement-expression for the odd multi-statement _fail
use case and include the else in the definition to remove any room for
confusion.