Re: [PATCH v7 10/18] jobs: rename static functions called with job_mutex held

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 23.06.2022 um 13:19 hat Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito geschrieben:
> 
> 
> Am 23/06/2022 um 13:10 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> > On 6/23/22 12:08, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 22/06/2022 um 20:38 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> >>> On 6/22/22 17:26, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 21/06/2022 um 19:26 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> >>>>> On 6/16/22 16:18, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> >>>>>> With the*nop*  job_lock/unlock placed, rename the static
> >>>>>> functions that are always under job_mutex, adding "_locked" suffix.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> List of functions that get this suffix:
> >>>>>> job_txn_ref           job_txn_del_job
> >>>>>> job_txn_apply           job_state_transition
> >>>>>> job_should_pause       job_event_cancelled
> >>>>>> job_event_completed       job_event_pending
> >>>>>> job_event_ready           job_event_idle
> >>>>>> job_do_yield           job_timer_not_pending
> >>>>>> job_do_dismiss           job_conclude
> >>>>>> job_update_rc           job_commit
> >>>>>> job_abort           job_clean
> >>>>>> job_finalize_single       job_cancel_async
> >>>>>> job_completed_txn_abort       job_prepare
> >>>>>> job_needs_finalize       job_do_finalize
> >>>>>> job_transition_to_pending  job_completed_txn_success
> >>>>>> job_completed           job_cancel_err
> >>>>>> job_force_cancel_err
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that "locked" refers to the*nop*  job_lock/unlock, and not
> >>>>>> real_job_lock/unlock.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No functional change intended.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito<eesposit@redhat.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmm. Maybe it was already discussed.. But for me it seems, that it
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be simpler to review previous patches, that fix job_ API users to use
> >>>>> locking properly, if this renaming go earlier.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, in this series, we can't update everything at once. So
> >>>>> patch to
> >>>>> patch, we make the code more and more correct. (yes I remember that
> >>>>> lock() is a noop, but I should review thinking that it real,
> >>>>> otherwise,
> >>>>> how to review?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, I'm saying about formal correctness of using lock() unlock()
> >>>>> function in connection with introduced _locked prifixes and in
> >>>>> connection with how it should finally work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You do:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 05. introduce some _locked functions, that just duplicates, and
> >>>>> job_pause_point_locked() is formally inconsistent, as I said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 06. Update a lot of places, to give them their final form (but not
> >>>>> final, as some functions will be renamed to _locked, some not, hard to
> >>>>> imagine)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 07,08,09. Update some more, and even more places. very hard to track
> >>>>> formal correctness of using locks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10-...: rename APIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think about the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Introduce noop lock, and some internal _locked() versions, and keep
> >>>>> formal consistency inside job.c, considering all public interfaces as
> >>>>> unlocked:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    at this point:
> >>>>>     - everything correct inside job.c
> >>>>>     - no public interfaces with _locked prefix
> >>>>>     - all public interfaces take mutex internally
> >>>>>     - no external user take mutex by hand
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can rename all internal static functions at this step too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Introduce some public _locked APIs, that we'll use in next patches
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. Now start fixing external users in several patches:
> >>>>>       - protect by mutex direct use of job fields
> >>>>>     - make wider locks and move to _locked APIs inside them where
> >>>>> needed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In this scenario, every updated unit becomes formally correct after
> >>>>> update, and after all steps everything is formally correct, and we can
> >>>>> move to turning-on the mutex.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand your logic also here, sorry :(
> >>>>
> >>>> I assume you want to keep patch 1-4, then the problem is assing
> >>>> job_lock
> >>>> and renaming functions in _locked.
> >>>> So I would say the problem is in patch 5-6-10-11-12-13. All the others
> >>>> should be self contained.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand patch 5 is a little hard to follow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, I am not sure what you propose here but it seems that the end goal
> >>>> is to just have the same result, but with additional intermediate steps
> >>>> that are just "do this just because in the next patch will be useful".
> >>>> I think the problem is that we are going to miss the "why we need the
> >>>> lock" logic in the patches if we do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> The logic I tried to convey in this order is the following:
> >>>> - job.h: add _locked duplicates for job API functions called with and
> >>>> without job_mutex
> >>>>      Just create duplicates of functions
> >>>>
> >>>> - jobs: protect jobs with job_lock/unlock
> >>>>      QMP and monitor functions call APIs that assume lock is taken,
> >>>>      drivers must take explicitly the lock
> >>>>
> >>>> - jobs: rename static functions called with job_mutex held
> >>>> - job.h: rename job API functions called with job_mutex held
> >>>> - block_job: rename block_job functions called with job_mutex held
> >>>>      *given* that some functions are always under lock, transform
> >>>>      them in _locked. Requires the job_lock/unlock patch
> >>>>
> >>>> - job.h: define unlocked functions
> >>>>      Comments on the public functions that are not _locked
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> @Kevin, since you also had some feedbacks on the patch ordering, do you
> >>>> agree with this ordering or you have some other ideas?
> >>>>
> >>>> Following your suggestion, we could move patches 10-11-12-13 before
> >>>> patch 6 "jobs: protect jobs with job_lock/unlock".
> >>>>
> >>>> (Apologies for changing my mind, but being the second complain I am
> >>>> starting to reconsider reordering the patches).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> In two words, what I mean: let's keep the following invariant from patch
> >>> to patch:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Function that has _locked() prefix is always called with lock held
> >>> 2. Function that has _locked() prefix never calls functions that take
> >>> lock by themselves so that would dead-lock
> >>> 3. Function that is documented as "called with lock not held" is never
> >>> called with lock held
> >>>
> >>> That what I mean by "formal correctness": yes, we know that lock is
> >>> noop, but still let's keep code logic to correspond function naming and
> >>> comments that we add.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ok I get what you mean, but then we have useless changes for public
> >> functions that eventually will only be _locked() like job_next_locked:
> >>
> >> The function is always called in a loop, so it is pointless to take the
> >> lock inside. Therefore the patch would be "incorrect" on its own anyways.
> >>
> >> Then, we would have a patch where we add the lock guard inside, and
> >> another one where we remove it and rename to _locked and take the lock
> >> outside. Seems unnecessary to me.
> > 
> > For me it looks a bit simpler than you describe. And anyway keeping the
> > correctness from patch to patch worth the complexity. I'll give an
> > argument.
> > 
> > First what is the best practices? Best practices is when every patch is
> > good and absolutely correct. So that you can apply any number of patches
> > from the beginning of the series (01-NN), commit them to master and this
> > will break neither compilation, nor tests, nor readability, nothing.
> > This makes the review process iterable: if I'm OK with patches 01-03, I
> > give them r-b and don't think about them. I don't have to keep in mind
> > any tricky things. And I can review 04 several days later not rereading
> > 01-03 (or at least I can consider applied 01-03 as a good correct base
> > state). This way I'm sure, that if I reviewed all patches one-by-one,
> > each one is correct, then the whole thing is correct.
> > 
> > A lot harder to review when we have only collective correctness: the
> > whole series being applied make a correct thing, but we can't say it
> > about intermediate states. In your series we can't be absolutely correct
> > with each patch, as we have to switch from aio-context lock to mutex in
> > one patch, that's why mutex is added as noop. That's a reasonable and
> > (seems) unsolvable drawback. That's a thing I have to keep in mind
> > during the whole review. But I'd prefer not add more such things, like
> > comments and _locked suffixes that don't correspond to the code.
> > 
> > With the invariant that I propose, the following logic works:
> > 
> > If
> >    1. we keep the invariant from patch to patch
> >    AND
> >    2. at the end we have updated all users of the internal and external
> > APIs, not missed some file or function
> > Then everything is correct at the end.
> > 
> > Without the invariant I can't prove that everything is correct at the
> > end, as it is hard to follow the degree of correctness from patch to
> > patch. In your way the only invariant that we have from patch to patch,
> > is that mutex is noop, so all changes do nothing, and therefore they are
> > correct. This way I can give an r-b to all such patches not thinking
> > about details, they are noop. But when I finally have to review the
> > patch that turns on the mutex, I'll have to recheck all internal and
> > external API users, which is equivalent to review all the changes merged
> > into one patch.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Consider the case with job_next. The most correct way to update it IMHO:
> > 
> > 1. Add lock inside job_next() and add job_next_locked() - in one patch
> > with other similar changes of job.c and job.h.
> > 
> > At this moment we have job_next() calls in a loop, which is not good (we
> > want larger critical section), but that doesn't break the invariant I
> > proposed above.
> 
> The only thing I am pointing here is that this breaks "readability",
> meaning if someone bisects here it will find a very weird situation
> (aside from the fact that there is a noop lock).
> 
> But I guess this is fine, as long as I write it in the commit message.
> 
> And since these patch are waiting here for more than 3 months now, I
> would say if the others (Kevin?) agree I will change the order with what
> you proposed here.

Yes, I think Vladimir is having the same difficulties with reading the
series as I had. And I believe his suggestion would make the
intermediate states less impossible to review. The question is how much
work it would be and whether you're willing to do this. As I said, if
reorganising is too hard, I'm okay with just ignoring the intermediate
state and reviewing the series as if it were a single patch.

Kevin