Re: [PATCH] rust: hrtimer: introduce hrtimer support

[Thomas Gleixner]

Andreas!

On Tue, Apr 30 2024 at 20:18, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 25 2024 at 11:46, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>>> +// SAFETY: A `Timer` can be moved to other threads and used from there.
>>> +unsafe impl<T> Send for Timer<T> {}
>>> +
>>> +// SAFETY: Timer operations are locked on C side, so it is safe to operate on a
>>> +// timer from multiple threads
>>
>> Kinda. Using an hrtimer from different threads needs some thought in the
>> implementation as obviously ordering matters:
>>
>>      T1                              T2
>>      hrtimer_start()                 hrtimer_cancel()
>>
>> So depending on whether T1 gets the internal lock first or T2 the
>> outcome is different. If T1 gets it first the timer is canceled by
>> T2. If T2 gets it first the timer ends up armed.
>
> That is all fine. What is meant here is that we will not get UB in the
> `hrtimer` subsystem when racing these operations. As far as I can tell
> from the C source, the operations are atomic, even though their
> interleaving will not be deterministic.

That's correct. All operations happen with the associated base lock held.

>>> +unsafe impl<T> Sync for Timer<T> {}
>>> +
>>> +impl<T: TimerCallback> Timer<T> {
>>> +    /// Return an initializer for a new timer instance.
>>> +    pub fn new() -> impl PinInit<Self> {
>>> +        crate::pin_init!( Self {
>>> +            timer <- Opaque::ffi_init(move |place: *mut bindings::hrtimer| {
>>> +                // SAFETY: By design of `pin_init!`, `place` is a pointer live
>>> +                // allocation. hrtimer_init will initialize `place` and does not
>>> +                // require `place` to be initialized prior to the call.
>>> +                unsafe {
>>> +                    bindings::hrtimer_init(
>>> +                        place,
>>> +                        bindings::CLOCK_MONOTONIC as i32,
>>> +                        bindings::hrtimer_mode_HRTIMER_MODE_REL,
>>
>> This is odd. The initializer really should take a clock ID and a mode
>> argument. Otherwise you end up implementing a gazillion of different
>> timers.
>
> I implemented the minimum set of features to satisfy the requirements
> for the Rust null block driver. It is my understanding that most
> maintainers of existing infrastructure prefers to have a user for the
> implemented features, before wanting to merge them.
>
> I can try to extend the abstractions to cover a more complete `hrtimer`
> API. Or we can work on this subset and try to get that ready to merge,
> and then expand scope later.

Wouldn't expanding scope later require to change already existing call sites?

>>> +                    );
>>> +                }
>>> +
>>> +                // SAFETY: `place` is pointing to a live allocation, so the deref
>>> +                // is safe. The `function` field might not be initialized, but
>>> +                // `addr_of_mut` does not create a reference to the field.
>>> +                let function: *mut Option<_> = unsafe { core::ptr::addr_of_mut!((*place).function) };
>>> +
>>> +                // SAFETY: `function` points to a valid allocation.
>>> +                unsafe { core::ptr::write(function, Some(T::Receiver::run)) };
>>
>> We probably should introduce hrtimer_setup(timer, clockid, mode, function)
>> to avoid this construct. That would allow to cleanup existing C code too.
>
> Do you want me to cook up a C patch for that, or would you prefer to do
> that yourself?

Please create that patch yourself and convert at least one C location to
this new interface in a separate patch. THe remaining C cleanup can go
from there and mostly be scripted with coccinelle.

>>> +/// [`Box<T>`]: Box
>>> +/// [`Arc<T>`]: Arc
>>> +/// [`ARef<T>`]: crate::types::ARef
>>> +pub trait RawTimer: Sync {
>>> +    /// Schedule the timer after `expires` time units
>>> +    fn schedule(self, expires: u64);
>>
>> Don't we have some time related rust types in the kernel by now?
>
> There are patches on the list, but I think they are not applied to any
> tree yet? I did not want to depend on those patches before they are
> staged somewhere. Would you prefer this patch on top of the Rust `ktime`
> patches?

The initial set is queued in

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/core

for 6.10. Boqun has some updates on top IIRC. Your stuff should go
through that branch too.

>>> +        // SAFETY: This `Arc` comes from a call to `Arc::into_raw()`
>>> +        let receiver = unsafe { Arc::from_raw(data_ptr) };
>>> +
>>> +        T::run(receiver);
>>> +
>>> +        bindings::hrtimer_restart_HRTIMER_NORESTART
>>
>> One of the common use cases of hrtimers is to create periodic schedules
>> where the timer callback advances the expiry value and returns
>> HRTIMER_RESTART. It might be not required for your initial use case at
>> hand, but you'll need that in the long run IMO.
>
> If you are OK with taking that feature without a user, I will gladly add
> it.

I'm fine with taking a more complete API which does not require to
change usage sites later on.

Thanks,

        tglx