lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/3] use kref for bio
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:20:30PM +0800, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>
>>If this is good one and the places where Al Viro pointed out really affect
>>performance, should we propagate this faster one by introducing helper
>>function like:
>>
>>static inline int refcount_test(atomic_t *refcount)
>>{
>> return (atomic_read(refcount) == 1) || (atomic_dec_and_test(refcount));
>>}
>>
>>and replace atomic_dec_and_test with it?
>
>
> No. It's obviously slower than atomic_dec_and_test() if refcount is
> greater than 1. And I'm less than sure that you can show that benefits
> in case when it is 1 outweight that.

Especially with the indirect function call. Modern CPUs often won't load
the destructor pointer quickly enough to avoid the pipeline bubble.

> Moreover, for dentries, inodes,
> superblocks and vfsmounts you'd have to pull spin_lock() in front of
> it, which would _definitely_ hurt (these are atomic_dec_and_lock()).

Also, it results in altered memory barrier semantics. Whether or not
this is actually an issue anywhere, any conversion would have to be
careful. If a memory barrier is required _anywhere_, it is likely to
be required on the final put.

With all those arguments against it, you need to demonstrate
improvements before it can be considered.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-26 18:12    [W:0.049 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site