Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-54108-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:56:03 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@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: <65c175935b175_386155294e4@iweiny-mobl.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>
 <65c16b16de625_d4122941c@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <65c16b16de625_d4122941c@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?E+EQVuxR/KUECRi+PJ4NmK9lrAAV6cO2Zy+G7IyMi3Hau0/UyNqnEjRmK1BJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?gh7J0DpJJoKshb1lQ/tG7rCCImkPnlLq68VeRlYle381cDuV07YtfT8nbE9f?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QUr6PG3sbj23waUqBSkShREIjFOFQSOZ68zXR229+WlsUuZopc8AEbMjibP5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?uTFh04XxUAJ4PNO8UR9Jaj5JEwql+T1AqBWZSCYMVftondL+TsVPQg+mjucF?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?z+XrB4QvOmDtepyR8LwJkDzEed0NCd1OlnKTHvlM8FgW6/G0m++dUUv14rbA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?5Mld7IUpdPHfkHCnfp3frjUMmNM6RjNzkC6eo0DUAWeYNB71drY8sM+4KME+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GzgdhsSlCSjMgKfKmH0wJ1s36LOJ1ykU1BcX/yFE8DhHiU4lCqM5r0tZa5KS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?WYjTOqHYmH2CkNvY0n43WMcrysBatPSOI9skB1gdA942NibDG8I7wkobCdn5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?UDygEbkH3UXKfsVqo1O78ZNI4E1WdqQqSNd/TgeouKYaImhrS/l57FBDbdEf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?SF+Fe8bx3O7ieBwZeKbtHOSCxlyklAKf1vvqwQrTkFrOqRsv6sgwoM98jzjT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?D9V6jJMOksATFg0pjP+auDfUw2sLAmjjwAY4HF2+rqAC1CIvqZHxqW+2I03y?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?0rea1cuKdRnc3dMyQvJvtOpueI7uoxoOuK8dvtk1vbE5sklpwp2Oqf8pfZN4?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?PGq+/w++PLid29pN7Hin38jFqTruDDJtMXAAUuusP8YsExUIJw5hZJMxRrhg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?KngTca7kNYfs4bXI2lPLDZAJYifmMmhu8G+UrVl/8gjCzcJszOVBb2oIhgtJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?NUmffIxtQVstETRm83i5Qgbgd+qp7wOkQc0iYoXQOvvtHK42cHr2n9zIJAEf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?CtVG0faMfwGJS98OGuuxyHGYhkxGprxl5QsTKuCz4lvVXjjOApxPDTJXEYW9?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?yDczInVaAULRA/GLKXjU9PsuvaHcWhvNF8rYXBLNPgIsy5GIrpanO9kTHsCc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?n7zvOAoNPLyyxQNvsR1Jqh5VQ1eFUeodNJrY5NnlqRrmoChwo0nOJlkCel5M?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Qke66SZ5+H5N8KW5at9h4gYjJhDPmaIDJ2ZDpWHyuDSUfGtlnrXir3acHyUy?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GnYrjl7rKuZMVs353EfD2/AXcJQgDpSDB8nB93UXjlHZRbPpd7GR3R016hkj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?07rZfuEoI9v2xlNzl4weuXajdt1gH6L9JW7e7zv+4crc5fGJUzwYvp5V7RHg?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?srew6b7VV8UfuJBi1yku3ECwi0B1sazZ2s69QCITEkfheHVUUV6O/iqXc3Lf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Vnag1rj46bnT+oUey5mvc0qvuIFsHGtD1nUPGP3XNGHv3CZWfShnHG4yALmY?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?61JwETGs8qOLUw6sNeJp6tjG/RPomLCpZgVmtXp45fk0Dszy6qFOeiGWGOJM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?o4RZ/sgNPEru+QP3mwpkHly6iIBRYeauAOt84oy1kHsQDLXmLYUK8MlPggHC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?0bnoZY3/Gt+V1/3ij6RVVaagMbUrRME8AWauxpnlv8r57lgs6q4uX+t31UhE?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?STNQT2eLbn5NYOIuZyEWshdlkOsqEMupadrjM5OU?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9b73a5b2-c320-4c07-9105-08dc26a60484
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA1PR11MB6733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2024 23:56:06.3399
 (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: NcGq5jl7zRao+kxbVOpKTUZJ83dP9X74kP7Blqa59xEb7yrD4EI4gL9A6jKytm50OI7B86KsqYsqlgNbtvvdNg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR11MB7131
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

Dan Williams wrote:
> 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.

I was not trying to include a subtle side effect.  I was thinking that the
else block would be the only block covered by the lock.  I've looked at
the preprocessor output again and I now see what you are saying.  Also I
see I was thinking incorrectly.  The else will be an empty statement and
the rest of the outer block will be covered by the lock...

Sorry for not seeing this before.

> > 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.

Yea ok I see it now,
Ira