Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:37:44 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <"stephen.hemminger@...tta.com"@mail.vyatta.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	ego@...ibm.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove rcu_assign_pointer(NULL) penalty with type/macro safety

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:42:33PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:41:34 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:35:37PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:00:24 -0800
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hello!
> > > > 
> > > > This is an updated version of the patch posted last November:
> > > > 
> > > > 	http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20071201.003721.cd6ff17c.en.html
> > > > 
> > > > This new version permits arguments with side effects, for example:
> > > > 
> > > > 	rcu_assign_pointer(global_p, p++);
> > > > 
> > > > and also verifies that the arguments are pointers, while still avoiding
> > > > the unnecessary memory barrier when assigning NULL to a pointer.
> > > > This memory-barrier avoidance means that rcu_assign_pointer() is now only
> > > > permitted for pointers (not array indexes), and so this version emits a
> > > > compiler warning if the first argument is not a pointer.  I built a "make
> > > > allyesconfig" version on an x86 system, and received no such warnings.
> > > > If RCU is ever applied to array indexes, then the second patch in this
> > > > series should be applied, and the resulting rcu_assign_index() be used.
> > > > 
> > > > Given the rather surprising history of subtlely broken implementations of
> > > > rcu_assign_pointer(), I took the precaution of generating a full set of
> > > > test cases and verified that memory barriers and compiler warnings were
> > > > emitted when required.  I guess it is the simple things that get you...
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  rcupdate.h |   16 ++++++++++++----
> > > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.24/include/linux/rcupdate.h linux-2.6.24-rap/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/rcupdate.h	2008-01-24 14:58:37.000000000 -0800
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.24-rap/include/linux/rcupdate.h	2008-02-13 13:36:47.000000000 -0800
> > > > @@ -270,12 +270,20 @@ extern struct lockdep_map rcu_lock_map;
> > > >   * structure after the pointer assignment.  More importantly, this
> > > >   * call documents which pointers will be dereferenced by RCU read-side
> > > >   * code.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Throws a compiler warning for non-pointer arguments.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Does not insert a memory barrier for a NULL pointer.
> > > >   */
> > > >  
> > > > -#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v)	({ \
> > > > -						smp_wmb(); \
> > > > -						(p) = (v); \
> > > > -					})
> > > > +#define rcu_assign_pointer(p, v)	\
> > > > +	({ \
> > > > +		typeof(*p) *_________p1 = (v); \
> > > > +		\
> > > > +		if (!__builtin_constant_p(v) || (_________p1 != NULL)) \
> > > > +			smp_wmb(); \
> > > > +		(p) = _________p1; \
> > > > +	})
> > > >  
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * synchronize_sched - block until all CPUs have exited any non-preemptive
> > > 
> > > Will this still work if p is unsigned long?
> > 
> > Hello, Steve,
> > 
> > If p is unsigned long, then use rcu_assign_index() from the next patch in
> > the set.  Looks like Andrew has applied it to -mm -- so please make sure
> > that he is aware if you do use it.
> 
> Make sure fib_trie still works and doesn't get warnings.

Ah.  It does take a bit to get fib_trie into one's build -- allyesconfig
doesn't cut it.  Please accept my apologies for my confusion!!!

Once fib_trie is configured, I do indeed get:

    net/ipv4/fib_trie.c: In function ‘node_set_parent’:
    net/ipv4/fib_trie.c:182: warning: comparison between pointer and integer

So, given that node->parent is an unsigned long, I changed node_set_parent()
to the following:

static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
{
	rcu_assign_index(node->parent, (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
}

This removes the warnings.  I am a little ambivalent about this, as
this is really a pointer in disguise rather than an array index, but
patch below.  I suppose that another option would be to make node->parent
be a void* and provide appropriate accessor functions/macros.

Thoughts?

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 fib_trie.c |    3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c
--- linux-2.6.25-rc1/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 14:38:12.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc1-fib_trie-warn.compile/net/ipv4/fib_trie.c	2008-02-13 15:22:02.000000000 -0800
@@ -179,8 +179,7 @@ static inline struct tnode *node_parent_
 
 static inline void node_set_parent(struct node *node, struct tnode *ptr)
 {
-	rcu_assign_pointer(node->parent,
-			   (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
+	rcu_assign_index(node->parent, (unsigned long)ptr | NODE_TYPE(node));
 }
 
 static inline struct node *tnode_get_child(struct tnode *tn, unsigned int i)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists