On Thu 2019-08-08 00:32:26, John Ogness wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/printk/numlist.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include "numlist.h"
struct numlist is really special variant of a list. Let me to
do a short summary:
+ FIFO queue interface
+ nodes sequentially numbered
+ nodes referenced by ID instead pointers to avoid ABA problems
+ requires custom node() callback to get pointer for given ID
+ lockless access:
+ pushed nodes must not longer get modified by push() caller
+ pop() caller gets exclusive write access, except that they
must modify ID first and do smp_wmb() later
+ pop() does not work:
+ tail node is "busy"
+ needs a custom callback that defines when a node is busy
+ tail is the last node
+ needed for lockless sequential numbering
I will start with one inevitable question ;-) Is it realistic to find
another user for this API, please?
I am not sure that all the indirections, caused by the generic API,
are worth the gain.
Well, the separate API makes sense anyway. I have some ideas that
might make it cleaner.
The barriers are because of validating the ID. Now we have:
struct nl_node {
unsigned long seq;
unsigned long next_id;
};
that is used in:
struct prb_desc {
/* private */
atomic_long_t id;
struct dr_desc desc;
struct nl_node list;
};
What will happen when we move id from struct prb_desc into struct nl_node?
struct nl_node {
unsigned long seq;
atomic_long_t id;
unsigned long next_id;
};
struct prb_desc {
struct dr_desc desc;
struct nl_node list;
};
Then the "node" callback might just return the structure. It makes
perfect sense. struct nl_node is always static for a given id.
For the printk ringbuffer it would look like:
struct nl_node *prb_nl_get_node(unsigned long id, void *nl_user)
{
struct printk_ringbuffer *rb = (struct printk_ringbuffer *)nl_user;
struct prb_desc *d = to_desc(rb, id);
return &d->list;
}
I would also hide the callback behind a generic wrapper:
struct nl_node *numlist_get_node(struct numlist *nl, unsigned long id)
{
return nl->get_node(id, nl->user_data);
}
Then we could have nicely symetric and self contained barriers
in numlist_read():
bool numlist_read(struct numlist *nl, unsigned long id, unsigned long *seq,
unsigned long *next_id)
{
struct nl_node *n;
unsigned long cur_id;
n = numlist_get_node(nl, id);
if (!n)
return false;
/*
* Make sure that seq and next_id values will be read
* for the expected id.
*/
cur_id = atomic_long_read_acquire(&n->id);
if (cur_id != id)
return false;
if (seq) {
*seq = n->seq;
if (next_id)
*next_id = n->next_id;
}
/*
* Make sure that seq and next_id values were read for
* the expected ID.
*/
cur_id = atomic_long_read_release(&n->id);
return cur_id == id;
}
numlist_push() might be the same, except the I would
remove several WRITE_ONCE as discussed in another mail:
void numlist_push(struct numlist *nl, struct nl_node *n)
{
unsigned long head_id;
unsigned long seq;
unsigned long r;
/* Setup the node to be a list terminator: next_id == id. */
n->next_id = n->id;
do {
do {
head_id = atomic_long_read(&nl->head_id);
} while (!numlist_read(nl, head_id, &seq, NULL));
n->seq = seq + 1;
/*
* This store_release() guarantees that @seq and @next are
* stored before the node with @id is visible to any popping
* writers.
*
* It pairs with the acquire() when tail_id gets updated
* in headlist_pop();
*/
} while (atomic_long_cmpxchg_release(&nl->head_id, head_id, id) !=
head_id);
n = nl->get_node(nl, head_id);
/*
* This barrier makes sure that nl->head_id already points to
* the newly pushed node.
*
* It pairs with acquire when new id is written in numlist_pop().
* It allows to pop() and reuse this node. It can not longer
* be the last one.
*/
smp_store_release(&n->next_id, id);
}
Then I would add a symetric callback that would generate ID for
a newly popped struct. It will allow to set new ID in the numlist
API and have the barriers symetric. Something like:
unsined long prb_new_node_id(unsigned long old_id, , void *nl_user)
{
struct printk_ringbuffer *rb = (struct printk_ringbuffer *)nl_user;
return id + DESCS_COUNT(rb);
}
Then we could hide it in
unsigned long numlist_get_new_id(struct numlist *nl, unsigned long id)
{
return nl->get_new_id(id, nl->user_data);
}
and do
struct nl_node *numlist_pop(struct numlist *nl)
{
struct nl_node *n;
unsigned long tail_id;
unsigned long next_id;
unsigned long r;
tail_id = atomic_long_read(&nl->tail_id);
do {
do {
tail_id = atomic_long_read(&nl->tail_id);
} while (!numlist_read(nl, tail_id, NULL, &next_id));
/* Make sure the node is not the only node on the list. */
if (next_id == tail_id)
return NULL;
/* Make sure the node is not busy. */
if (nl->busy(tail_id, nl->busy_arg))
return NULL;
/*
* Make sure that nl->tail_id is update before
* we start modyfying the popped node.
*
* It pairs with release() when head_id is
* pushed in numlist_push().
*/
} while (atomic_long_cmpxchg_acquire(&nl->tail_id,
tail_id, next_id) !=
tail_id);
/* Got exclusive write access to the node. */
n = numlist_get_node(nl, tail_id);
tail_id = numlist_get_new_id(tail_id, nl);
/*
* Make sure that we set new ID before we allow
* more changes in user structure handled by this node.
*
* It pairs with release() barrier when the node is
* pushed into the numlist again, gets linked to
* the previous node and can't be modified anymore.
* See numlist_push().
*/
atomic_long_set_acquire(&d->id, atomic_long_read(&d->id) +
DESCS_COUNT(rb));
return n;
}
I hope that it makes some sense. I feel exhausted. It is Friday
evening here. I just wanted to send it because it looked like the most
constructive idea that I had this week. And I wanted to send something
more positive ;-)
Best Regards,
Petr
