Re: [PATCH 8/8] membarrier: Rewrite sync_core_before_usermode() and improve documentation

----- On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, at 9:31 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

quoted

----- On Jun 17, 2021, at 8:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:

quoted

On 6/17/21 7:47 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

quoted

Please change back this #ifndef / #else / #endif within function for

if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE)) {
  ...
} else {
  ...
}

I don't think mixing up preprocessor and code logic makes it more readable.

I agree, but I don't know how to make the result work well.
membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode() isn't defined in the !IS_ENABLED
case, so either I need to fake up a definition or use #ifdef.

If I faked up a definition, I would want to assert, at build time, that
it isn't called.  I don't think we can do:

static void membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode()
{
   BUILD_BUG_IF_REACHABLE();
}

Let's look at the context here:

static void ipi_sync_core(void *info)
{
    [....]
    membarrier_sync_core_before_usermode()
}

^ this can be within #ifdef / #endif

static int membarrier_private_expedited(int flags, int cpu_id)
[...]
               if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE))
                        return -EINVAL;
                if (!(atomic_read(&mm->membarrier_state) &
                      MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE_READY))
                        return -EPERM;
                ipi_func = ipi_sync_core;

All we need to make the line above work is to define an empty ipi_sync_core
function in the #else case after the ipi_sync_core() function definition.

Or am I missing your point ?

Maybe?

My objection is that an empty ipi_sync_core is a lie — it doesn’t sync the core.
I would be fine with that if I could have the compiler statically verify that
it’s not called, but I’m uncomfortable having it there if the implementation is
actively incorrect.

I see. Another approach would be to implement a "setter" function to populate
"ipi_func". That setter function would return -EINVAL in its #ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMBARRIER_SYNC_CORE
implementation.

Would that be better ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com