[dm-devel] [PATCH 1/3] list_bl: Add hlist_bl_add_before/behind helpers

[Nikos Tsironis]

On 3/14/19 2:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13 2019 at  7:48pm -0400,
> Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
Hi Paul,

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 04:32:02PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 20 2018 at  1:06pm -0500,
>>> Nikos Tsironis <ntsironis at arrikto.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add hlist_bl_add_before/behind helpers to add an element before/after an
>>>> existing element in a bl_list.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikos Tsironis <ntsironis at arrikto.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Tsitsimpis <iliastsi at arrikto.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  include/linux/list_bl.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/list_bl.h b/include/linux/list_bl.h
>>>> index 3fc2cc57ba1b..2fd918e5fd48 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/list_bl.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/list_bl.h
>>>> @@ -86,6 +86,33 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_add_head(struct hlist_bl_node *n,
>>>>  	hlist_bl_set_first(h, n);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static inline void hlist_bl_add_before(struct hlist_bl_node *n,
>>>> +				       struct hlist_bl_node *next)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct hlist_bl_node **pprev = next->pprev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	n->pprev = pprev;
>>>> +	n->next = next;
>>>> +	next->pprev = &n->next;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* pprev may be `first`, so be careful not to lose the lock bit */
>>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(*pprev,
>>>> +		   (struct hlist_bl_node *)
>>>> +			((unsigned long)n |
>>>> +			 ((unsigned long)*pprev & LIST_BL_LOCKMASK)));
>>
>> A nit, but use of uintptr_t shrinks things a bit:
>>
>> +		   (struct hlist_bl_node *)
>> +			((uintptr_t)n | ((uintptr_t)*pprev & LIST_BL_LOCKMASK)));
>>
>> I am not too concerned about this, though.
> 
> I'm fine with folding in your suggestion.
> 

Indeed, this looks better.

>> The WRITE_ONCE() is to handle races with hlist_bl_empty() (which does contain
>> the corresponding READ_ONCE()) correct?
> 
> Correct.

Yes that's correct.

> 
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void hlist_bl_add_behind(struct hlist_bl_node *n,
>>>> +				       struct hlist_bl_node *prev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	n->next = prev->next;
>>>> +	n->pprev = &prev->next;
>>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, n);
>>
>> I don't see what this WRITE_ONCE() is interacting with.  The traversals
>> use plain C-language reads, and hlist_bl_empty() can't get here.  All
>> uses of hlist_bl_for_each_entry() invoke hlist_bl_lock() before starting
>> the traversal, and hlist_bl_for_each_entry_safe() looks to be unused.
>> (Perhaps it should be removed?  Or is there some anticipated use?)

I am using hlist_bl_for_each_entry_safe() in this proposed patch for
dm-snapshot: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10835709/

>>
>> I don't believe that the WRITE_ONCE() is needed.  What am I missing?
>>
>> Other than that, looks good.
>>
>> 							Thanx, Paul
>>
> 
> I'd imagine it was just born out of symmetry with hlist_bl_add_before()
> and/or caution.  But let's see what Nikos has to say.

I also don't believe that this WRITE_SAME() is needed. But, looking at
hlist_add_behind() in include/linux/list.h, which, if I am not missing
something, is used in the same way as hlist_bl_add_behind(), it also
uses WRITE_ONCE() to update prev->next:

static inline void hlist_add_behind(struct hlist_node *n,
				    struct hlist_node *prev)
{
	n->next = prev->next;
	WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, n);
	n->pprev = &prev->next;

	if (n->next)
		n->next->pprev  = &n->next;
}

Could it be the case that the WRITE_ONCE() in hlist_add_behind() is also
not needed? This WRITE_ONCE() was introduced by commit 1c97be677f72b3
("list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when adding to lists and hlists").

But, since I am not an expert in lockless programming, I opted to be on
the safe side and followed the example of hlist_add_behind().

That said, I will follow up with a new version of the patch removing the
WRITE_ONCE() and using uintptr_t instead of unsigned long.

Thanks,
Nikos