* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 06:04:23PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > RCU_READ_LOCK_AUTO takes the rcu_read_lock and then uses glib's
> > > > g_auto infrastrcture (and thus whatever the compilers hooks are) to
> > > > release it on all exits of the block.
> > > >
> > > > Note this macro has a variable declaration in, and hence is not in
> > > > a while loop.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/qemu/rcu.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/qemu/rcu.h b/include/qemu/rcu.h
> > > > index 22876d1428..6a25b27d28 100644
> > > > --- a/include/qemu/rcu.h
> > > > +++ b/include/qemu/rcu.h
> > > > @@ -154,6 +154,18 @@ extern void call_rcu1(struct rcu_head *head,
> > > > RCUCBFunc *func);
> > > > }),
> > > > \
> > > > (RCUCBFunc *)g_free);
> > > >
> > > > +typedef char rcu_read_auto_t;
> > > > +static inline void rcu_read_auto_unlock(rcu_read_auto_t *r)
> > > > +{
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +G_DEFINE_AUTO_CLEANUP_CLEAR_FUNC(rcu_read_auto_t, rcu_read_auto_unlock)
> > > >
> > > > +#define RCU_READ_LOCK_AUTO g_auto(rcu_read_auto_t) \
> > > > + _rcu_read_auto = 'x'; \
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Functionally this works, but my gut feeling would be to follow
> > > the design of GMutexLocker as-is:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Threads.html#g-mutex-locker-new
> > >
> > > so you get a use pattern of
> > >
> > > g_autoptr(rcu_read_locker) locker = rcu_read_locker_new();
> > >
> > > This makes it explicit that the code is creating a variable here, which
> > > in turns means it is clear to force unlock early with
> > >
> > > g_clear_pointer(&locker, rcu_read_locker_free)
> >
> > The difference compared to the g-mutex-locker is that I don't have
> > another object to use as my pointer; that uses the address of the GMutex
> > as the dummy pointer value. I did try an experiment with g_autoptr
> > and found that it did need to return a non-NULL value for it to work,
> > which then lead me to think what value to use - while it seems to work
> > if I return (void *)1 it makes me nervous.
>
> Yeah, '(void*)1' would have been what I'd pick. The only thing that the
> value is used for is to pass to the rcu_read_locker_free() function
> which ignores it, which seems safe enough.
glib seems to be at least checking it; if you pass NULL the free'r
doesn't get called; so it worries me that we'd be relying on the current
definition.
Dave
> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
