From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
davem@davemloft.net, daniel@iogearbox.net, jannh@google.com,
paulmck@linux.ibm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:49:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190131084952.GG2296@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190130213418.gxbyfbmuiohn7vj4@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 01:34:19PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:05:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Would something like the below work for you instead?
> >
> > I find it easier to read, and the additional CONFIG symbol would give
> > architectures (say ARM) an easy way to force the issue.
> >
> >
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/helpers.c
> > @@ -221,6 +221,72 @@ const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_get_curr
> > .arg2_type = ARG_CONST_SIZE,
> > };
> >
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS) || defined(CONFIG_BPF_ARCH_SPINLOCK)
> > +
> > +static inline void __bpf_spin_lock(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
> > +{
> > + arch_spinlock_t *l = (void *)lock;
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*l) != sizeof(__u32));
> > + if (1) {
> > + union {
> > + __u32 val;
> > + arch_spinlock_t lock;
> > + } u = { .lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED };
> > + compiletime_assert(u.val == 0, "__ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED not 0");
> > + }
> > + arch_spin_lock(l);
>
> And archs can select CONFIG_BPF_ARCH_SPINLOCK when they don't
> use qspinlock and their arch_spinlock_t is compatible ?
> Nice. I like the idea!
Exactly, took me a little while to come up with that test for
__ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, but it now checks for both assumptions, so no
surprises when people get it wrong by accident.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void __bpf_spin_unlock(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
> > +{
> > + arch_spinlock_t *l = (void *)lock;
> > + arch_spin_unlock(l);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +static inline void __bpf_spin_lock(struct bpf_spin_lock *lock)
> > +{
> > + atomic_t *l = (void *)lock;
> > + do {
> > + atomic_cond_read_relaxed(l, !VAL);
>
> wow. that's quite a macro magic.
Yeah, C sucks for not having lambdas, this was the best we could come up
with.
This basically allows architectures to optimize the
wait-for-variable-to-change thing. Currently only ARM64 does that, I
have a horrible horrible patch that makes x86 use MONITOR/MWAIT for
this, and I suppose POWER should use it but doesn't.
> Should it be
> atomic_cond_read_relaxed(l, (!VAL));
> like qspinlock.c does ?
Extra parens doesn't hurt of course, but I don't think it's strictly
needed, the atomic_cond_read_*() wrappers already add extra parent
before passing it on to smp_cond_load_*().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-31 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-28 2:50 [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/9] introduce bpf_spin_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: " Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-30 21:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-30 21:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-31 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-01-31 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/9] bpf: add support for bpf_spin_lock to cgroup local storage Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 3/9] tools/bpf: sync include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 4/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock tests Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 5/9] selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 6/9] bpf: introduce BPF_F_LOCK flag Alexei Starovoitov
2019-01-28 2:50 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 9/9] selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190131084952.GG2296@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).