lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND][PATCH v3 14/17] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 24/03/2020 14.56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Extend the static_call infrastructure to optimize the following common
> > pattern:
> >
> > if (func_ptr)
> > func_ptr(args...)
> >
>
> > +#define DEFINE_STATIC_COND_CALL(name, _func) \
> > + DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(name, _func); \
> > + struct static_call_key STATIC_CALL_NAME(name) = { \
> > + .func = NULL, \
> > + }
> > +
> > #define static_call(name) \
> > ((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func))
> >
> > +#define static_cond_call(name) \
> > + if (STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func) \
> > + ((typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)(STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func))
> > +
>
> What, apart from fear of being ridiculed by kernel folks, prevents the
> compiler from reloading STATIC_CALL_NAME(name).func ? IOW, doesn't this
> want a READ_ONCE somewhere?

Hurmph.. I suspect you're quite right, but at the same time I can't seem
to write a macro that does that :/ Let me try harder.

> And please remind me, what is the consensus for sizeof(long) loads: does
> static_call() need load-tearing protection or not?

We all like to believe compilers are broken when they tear naturally
aligned words, but we're also not quite comfortable trusting that.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-27 11:09    [W:0.072 / U:8.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site