lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/15] static_call: Add basic static call infrastructure
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:54:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:28:51AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:44:23PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > > > + * Usage example:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * # Start with the following functions (with identical prototypes):
> > > > + * int func_a(int arg1, int arg2);
> > > > + * int func_b(int arg1, int arg2);
> > > > + *
> > > > + * # Define a 'my_key' reference, associated with func_a() by default
> > > > + * DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(my_key, func_a);
> > > > + *
> > > > + * # Call func_a()
> > > > + * static_call(my_key, arg1, arg2);
> > > > + *
> > > > + * # Update 'my_key' to point to func_b()
> > > > + * static_call_update(my_key, func_b);
> > > > + *
> > > > + * # Call func_b()
> > > > + * static_call(my_key, arg1, arg2);
> > >
> > > I think that this calling interface is not very intuitive.
> >
> > Yeah, it is somewhat unfortunate..
> >
> > > I understand that
> > > the macros/objtool cannot allow the calling interface to be completely
> > > transparent (as compiler plugin could). But, can the macros be used to
> > > paste the key with the “static_call”? I think that having something like:
> > >
> > > static_call__func(arg1, arg2)
> > >
> > > Is more readable than
> > >
> > > static_call(func, arg1, arg2)
> >
> > Doesn't really make it much better for me; I think I'd prefer to switch
> > to the GCC plugin scheme over this. ISTR there being some propotypes
> > there, but I couldn't quickly locate them.
>
> How about something like:
>
> static_call(key)(arg1, arg2);
>
> which is very close to the regular indirect call syntax.

Looks ok to me.

> Furthermore, how about we put the trampolines in .static_call.text
> instead of relying on prefixes?

Yeah, that would probably be better.

> Also, I think I can shrink static_call_key by half:
>
> - we can do away with static_call_key::tramp; there are only two usage
> sites:
>
> o __static_call_update, the static_call() macro can provide the
> address of STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(key) directly
>
> o static_call_add_module(), has two cases:
>
> * the trampoline is from outside the module; in this case
> it will already have been updated by a previous call to
> __static_call_update.
> * the trampoline is from inside the module; in this case
> it will have the default value and it doesn't need an
> update.
>
> so in no case does static_call_add_module() need to modify a
> trampoline.

Sounds plausible.

> - we can change static_call_key::site_mods into a single next pointer,
> just like jump_label's static_key.

Yep.

> But so far all the schemes I've come up with require 'key' to be a name,
> it cannot be an actual 'struct static_call_key *' value. And therefore
> usage from within structures isn't allowed.

Is that something we need? At least we were able to work around this
limitation with tracepoints' usage of static calls. But I could see how
it could be useful.

One way to solve that would be a completely different implementation:
have a global trampoline which detects the call site of the caller,
associates it with the given key, schedules some work to patch the call
site later, and then jumps to key->func. So the first call would
trigger the patching.

Then we might not even need objtool :-) But it might be tricky to pull
off.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-02 22:49    [W:0.100 / U:1.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site