Re: [PATCH RFC v2] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist datastructure

[Boqun Feng]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:03:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:49:25PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> [...] 
> > So C11 features are available to gnu89 as extensions, also I tried to
> > compile the following code with -std=gnu89:
> > 
> > 	#include <stdio.h>
> > 
> > 	typedef struct {
> > 		int a;
> > 	} atomic_t;
> > 
> > 	void g(void) {
> > 		printf("this is g\n");
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	void h(void) {
> > 		printf("this is f\n");
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	#define gen(x) _Generic((x), atomic_t : h(), int : g())
> > 
> > 	int main(void) {
> > 		int a;
> > 		atomic_t b;
> > 		gen(a);
> > 		gen(b);
> > 		gen(b);
> > 	}
> > 
> > , and it worked.
> > 
> > Besides, please note that in include/linux/compiler_types.h, _Generic is
> > already used.
> 
> > > > With these primitives introduced, you can avoid () to add those
> > > > rcu_segcblist_*_seglen() which have #ifdefs in them. Of course, an
> > > > alternative would be that we implement rcu_segcblist_*_seglen() using
> > > > _Generic, but I think someone else may have the similar problems or
> > > > requirement (already or in the future), so it might be worthwhile to
> > > > introduce the gen_ primitives for broader usage.
> > > 
> > > One issue is code using memory barriers around the operation, such as
> > > in rcu_segcblist_add_len() where you use smp_mb__before_atomic() for
> > > the atomic version, and regular smp_mb() for the non-atomic version.
> > > So ifdef will still exist to some degree.
> > > 
> > 
> > Right, I think we can have two functions: long_add_mb() and
> > atomic_long_add_mb(), this part is similar to ifdef approach, but we can
> > make a gen_long_add_mb() based on these two functions, and
> > gen_long_add_mb() simply switches between those functions according to
> > the actual type of the field, which I think is better than ifdef
> > approach at readability and maintenance.
> 
> Thanks for clarification. I agree with your idea, would you be able to write
> a patch to add the helpers my patch can use?
> 

Sure, I will send a prototype to see others' feelings about this, will
try to get that done by a day or two, so hopefully it won't block your
work ;-)

Regards,
Boqun

> If others are Ok with your idea, I can go ahead and use your helpers.
> 
> (I could write the helpers myself as well, next time I send the patch).
> 
> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature