[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5061ed62-fd3d-eb22-d90d-8d7a45817fbd@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:53:51 +0100
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when
locking without a context
Op 16-12-16 om 14:17 schreef Nicolai Hähnle:
> On 06.12.2016 16:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:47PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -640,10 +640,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>>> struct mutex_waiter waiter;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> bool first = false;
>>> - struct ww_mutex *ww;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - if (use_ww_ctx) {
>>> + if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
>>> + struct ww_mutex *ww;
>>> +
>>> ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
>>> if (unlikely(ww_ctx == READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)))
>>> return -EALREADY;
>>
>> So I don't see the point of removing *ww from the function scope, we can
>> still compute that container_of() even if !ww_ctx, right? That would
>> safe a ton of churn below, adding all those struct ww_mutex declarations
>> and container_of() casts.
>>
>> (and note that the container_of() is a fancy NO-OP because base is the
>> first member).
>
> Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.
>
> In my experience, the undefined behavior sanitizer in GCC for userspace programs complains about merely casting a pointer to the wrong type. I never went into the standards rabbit hole to figure out the details. It might be a C++ only thing (ubsan cannot tell the difference otherwise anyway), but that was the reason for doing the change in this more complicated way.
>
> Are you sure that this is defined behavior in C? If so, I'd be happy to go with the version that has less churn.
>
> I'll also get rid of those ww_mutex_lock* wrapper functions.
ww_ctx = use_ww_ctx ? container_of : NULL ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists