There are many places for monitor init its globals, at least:

- monitor_init_qmp_commands() at the very beginning
- single function to init monitor_lock
- in the first entry of monitor_init() using "is_first_init"

Unify them a bit.

Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
 include/monitor/monitor.h |  2 +-
 monitor.c                 | 25 ++++++++++---------------
 vl.c                      |  3 ++-
 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/monitor/monitor.h b/include/monitor/monitor.h
index 83ea4a1..3a5128a 100644
--- a/include/monitor/monitor.h
+++ b/include/monitor/monitor.h
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ extern Monitor *cur_mon;
 
 bool monitor_cur_is_qmp(void);
 
-void monitor_init_qmp_commands(void);
+void monitor_init_globals(void);
 void monitor_init(Chardev *chr, int flags);
 void monitor_cleanup(void);
 
diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
index d7eb3c2..7bd2e90 100644
--- a/monitor.c
+++ b/monitor.c
@@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ static void qmp_unregister_commands_hack(void)
 #endif
 }
 
-void monitor_init_qmp_commands(void)
+static void monitor_init_qmp_commands(void)
 {
     /*
      * Two command lists:
@@ -4043,6 +4043,14 @@ static void sortcmdlist(void)
     qsort((void *)info_cmds, array_num, elem_size, compare_mon_cmd);
 }
 
+void monitor_init_globals(void)
+{
+    monitor_init_qmp_commands();
+    monitor_qapi_event_init();
+    sortcmdlist();
+    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
+}
+
 /* These functions just adapt the readline interface in a typesafe way.  We
  * could cast function pointers but that discards compiler checks.
  */
@@ -4083,23 +4091,10 @@ void error_vprintf_unless_qmp(const char *fmt, va_list ap)
     }
 }
 
-static void __attribute__((constructor)) monitor_lock_init(void)
-{
-    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
-}
-
 void monitor_init(Chardev *chr, int flags)
 {
-    static int is_first_init = 1;
-    Monitor *mon;
-
-    if (is_first_init) {
-        monitor_qapi_event_init();
-        sortcmdlist();
-        is_first_init = 0;
-    }
+    Monitor *mon = g_malloc(sizeof(*mon));
 
-    mon = g_malloc(sizeof(*mon));
     monitor_data_init(mon, false);
 
     qemu_chr_fe_init(&mon->chr, chr, &error_abort);
diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
index fb1f05b..850cf55 100644
--- a/vl.c
+++ b/vl.c
@@ -3049,7 +3049,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
     qemu_init_exec_dir(argv[0]);
 
     module_call_init(MODULE_INIT_QOM);
-    monitor_init_qmp_commands();
 
     qemu_add_opts(&qemu_drive_opts);
     qemu_add_drive_opts(&qemu_legacy_drive_opts);
@@ -4587,6 +4586,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
 
     parse_numa_opts(current_machine);
 
+    monitor_init_globals();
+
     if (qemu_opts_foreach(qemu_find_opts("mon"),
                           mon_init_func, NULL, NULL)) {
         exit(1);
-- 
2.7.4

On 09/14/2017 02:50 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> There are many places for monitor init its globals, at least:
> 
> - monitor_init_qmp_commands() at the very beginning
> - single function to init monitor_lock
> - in the first entry of monitor_init() using "is_first_init"
> 
> Unify them a bit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/monitor/monitor.h |  2 +-
>  monitor.c                 | 25 ++++++++++---------------
>  vl.c                      |  3 ++-
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 

>  
> +void monitor_init_globals(void)
> +{
> +    monitor_init_qmp_commands();
> +    monitor_qapi_event_init();
> +    sortcmdlist();
> +    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
> +}

Are we sure that this new function is called sooner than any access to
monitor_lock,

> -static void __attribute__((constructor)) monitor_lock_init(void)
> -{
> -    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
> -}

especially since the old code initialized the lock REALLY early?

> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index fb1f05b..850cf55 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -3049,7 +3049,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>      qemu_init_exec_dir(argv[0]);
>  
>      module_call_init(MODULE_INIT_QOM);
> -    monitor_init_qmp_commands();
>  
>      qemu_add_opts(&qemu_drive_opts);
>      qemu_add_drive_opts(&qemu_legacy_drive_opts);
> @@ -4587,6 +4586,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>  
>      parse_numa_opts(current_machine);
>  
> +    monitor_init_globals();
> +

Pre-patch, a breakpoint on main() and on monitor_lock_init() fires on
monitor_lock_init() first, prior to main.

Breakpoint 2, monitor_lock_init () at /home/eblake/qemu/monitor.c:4089
4089	    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
(gdb) c
Continuing.
[New Thread 0x7fffce225700 (LWP 26380)]

Thread 1 "qemu-system-x86" hit Breakpoint 1, main (argc=5,
    argv=0x7fffffffdc88, envp=0x7fffffffdcb8) at vl.c:3077
3077	{

Post-patch, the mutex is not initialized until well after main().  So
the real question is what (if anything) is using the lock in between
those two points?

Hmm - it may be that we needed it back before commit 05875687, when we
really did depend on MODULE_INIT_QAPI, but it is something we forgot to
cleanup in the meantime?

If nothing else, the commit message should call out that dropping
__attribute__((constructor)) nonsense is intentional (if it was indeed
nonsense).

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

On 09/19/2017 04:35 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/14/2017 02:50 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
>> There are many places for monitor init its globals, at least:
>>

> Are we sure that this new function is called sooner than any access to
> monitor_lock,
> 
>> -static void __attribute__((constructor)) monitor_lock_init(void)
>> -{
>> -    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
>> -}
> 
> especially since the old code initialized the lock REALLY early?

(Partially) answering myself:

> 
> Pre-patch, a breakpoint on main() and on monitor_lock_init() fires on
> monitor_lock_init() first, prior to main.
> 
> Breakpoint 2, monitor_lock_init () at /home/eblake/qemu/monitor.c:4089
> 4089	    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
> (gdb) c
> Continuing.
> [New Thread 0x7fffce225700 (LWP 26380)]
> 
> Thread 1 "qemu-system-x86" hit Breakpoint 1, main (argc=5,
>     argv=0x7fffffffdc88, envp=0x7fffffffdcb8) at vl.c:3077
> 3077	{

Also, pre-patch, 'watch monitor_lock.initialized' and 'watch
monitor_lock.lock.__data.__lock' show that the lock is first utilized at:

(gdb) bt
#0  0x00007fffdac59e12 in __GI___pthread_mutex_lock
(mutex=0x555556399340 <monitor_lock>) at ../nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c:80
#1  0x0000555555ce01ed in qemu_mutex_lock (mutex=0x555556399340
<monitor_lock>)
    at util/qemu-thread-posix.c:65
#2  0x00005555557bc8b8 in monitor_init (chr=0x55555690bf70, flags=4)
    at /home/eblake/qemu/monitor.c:4126
#3  0x000055555591ae80 in mon_init_func (opaque=0x0,
opts=0x55555688e3d0, errp=0x0) at vl.c:2482
#4  0x0000555555cf3e63 in qemu_opts_foreach (list=0x555556225200
<qemu_mon_opts>, func=0x55555591ad33 <mon_init_func>, opaque=0x0, errp=0x0)
    at util/qemu-option.c:1104
#5  0x0000555555920128 in main (argc=5, argv=0x7fffffffdc88,
envp=0x7fffffffdcb8) at vl.c:4670

and double-checking qemu_mutex_lock, our .initialized member provides
NICE runtime checking that we don't use an uninitialized lock.  So the
fact that your patch doesn't assert means your later initialization is
still fine.

[TIL: the gdb 'watch' command is cool, but it's better if you watch only
4 or 8 bytes at a time; I first tried 'watch monitor_lock', but that's
hundreds of times slower as hardware can't watch that much data at once,
at which point gdb emulates it by single-stepping the entire program]

> 
> Post-patch, the mutex is not initialized until well after main().  So
> the real question is what (if anything) is using the lock in between
> those two points?

According to gdb watchpoints, no.

> 
> Hmm - it may be that we needed it back before commit 05875687, when we
> really did depend on MODULE_INIT_QAPI, but it is something we forgot to
> cleanup in the meantime?

So what I didn't debug was whether the constructor attribute was
mandatory in the past, and if so, which commit made it no longer
mandatory (my mention of commit 05875687 is only a guess).

> 
> If nothing else, the commit message should call out that dropping
> __attribute__((constructor)) nonsense is intentional (if it was indeed
> nonsense).
> 

This part is still true.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:48:35PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 04:35 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 09/14/2017 02:50 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> There are many places for monitor init its globals, at least:
> >>
> 
> > Are we sure that this new function is called sooner than any access to
> > monitor_lock,
> > 
> >> -static void __attribute__((constructor)) monitor_lock_init(void)
> >> -{
> >> -    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
> >> -}
> > 
> > especially since the old code initialized the lock REALLY early?
> 
> (Partially) answering myself:
> 
> > 
> > Pre-patch, a breakpoint on main() and on monitor_lock_init() fires on
> > monitor_lock_init() first, prior to main.
> > 
> > Breakpoint 2, monitor_lock_init () at /home/eblake/qemu/monitor.c:4089
> > 4089	    qemu_mutex_init(&monitor_lock);
> > (gdb) c
> > Continuing.
> > [New Thread 0x7fffce225700 (LWP 26380)]
> > 
> > Thread 1 "qemu-system-x86" hit Breakpoint 1, main (argc=5,
> >     argv=0x7fffffffdc88, envp=0x7fffffffdcb8) at vl.c:3077
> > 3077	{
> 
> Also, pre-patch, 'watch monitor_lock.initialized' and 'watch
> monitor_lock.lock.__data.__lock' show that the lock is first utilized at:
> 
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x00007fffdac59e12 in __GI___pthread_mutex_lock
> (mutex=0x555556399340 <monitor_lock>) at ../nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c:80
> #1  0x0000555555ce01ed in qemu_mutex_lock (mutex=0x555556399340
> <monitor_lock>)
>     at util/qemu-thread-posix.c:65
> #2  0x00005555557bc8b8 in monitor_init (chr=0x55555690bf70, flags=4)
>     at /home/eblake/qemu/monitor.c:4126
> #3  0x000055555591ae80 in mon_init_func (opaque=0x0,
> opts=0x55555688e3d0, errp=0x0) at vl.c:2482
> #4  0x0000555555cf3e63 in qemu_opts_foreach (list=0x555556225200
> <qemu_mon_opts>, func=0x55555591ad33 <mon_init_func>, opaque=0x0, errp=0x0)
>     at util/qemu-option.c:1104
> #5  0x0000555555920128 in main (argc=5, argv=0x7fffffffdc88,
> envp=0x7fffffffdcb8) at vl.c:4670
> 
> and double-checking qemu_mutex_lock, our .initialized member provides
> NICE runtime checking that we don't use an uninitialized lock.  So the
> fact that your patch doesn't assert means your later initialization is
> still fine.

Yeah, that's something I liked as well.

> 
> [TIL: the gdb 'watch' command is cool, but it's better if you watch only
> 4 or 8 bytes at a time; I first tried 'watch monitor_lock', but that's
> hundreds of times slower as hardware can't watch that much data at once,
> at which point gdb emulates it by single-stepping the entire program]

Good to learn it!

Thanks for digging the whole thing up.

> 
> > 
> > Post-patch, the mutex is not initialized until well after main().  So
> > the real question is what (if anything) is using the lock in between
> > those two points?
> 
> According to gdb watchpoints, no.
> 
> > 
> > Hmm - it may be that we needed it back before commit 05875687, when we
> > really did depend on MODULE_INIT_QAPI, but it is something we forgot to
> > cleanup in the meantime?
> 
> So what I didn't debug was whether the constructor attribute was
> mandatory in the past, and if so, which commit made it no longer
> mandatory (my mention of commit 05875687 is only a guess).
> 
> > 
> > If nothing else, the commit message should call out that dropping
> > __attribute__((constructor)) nonsense is intentional (if it was indeed
> > nonsense).
> > 
> 
> This part is still true.

If this patch is doable, I'll add explicit reason to commit message.

Paolo/Markus, would any of you help confirm this change? (considering
Paolo introduced commit d622cb587)

One thing I slightly not sure of is that, some device realization has
this code path (take fsl_imx25_realize() as example):

  fsl_imx25_realize
    qemu_chr_new
      qemu_chr_new_noreplay
        char is_mux?
          monitor_init

(note: I never know why we create the monitor in chardev
 creation... would there be a better place?)

Especially considering some integrated devices can be created along
with machine init.

Anyway, this patch was trying to cleanup the things a bit, and also
more convenient for me to add new codes upon.  If any of us think it's
not safe enough, please say explicitly, and I can drop it and do the
rest in "the ugly way".

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu