Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:12:41 -0500 | From | Theodore Tso <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum() |
| |
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:52:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The first patch which was added (pre-2.6.27) was "percpu_counter: new > function percpu_counter_sum_and_set". This added the broken-by-design > percpu_counter_sum_and_set() function, **and used it in ext4**. >
Mea culpa, I was the one who reviewed Mingming's patch, and missed this. Part of the problem was that percpu_counter.c isn't well documented, and I so saw the spinlock, but didn't realize it only protected reference counter, and not the per-cpu array. I should have read through code more thoroughly before approving the patch.
I suppose if we wanted we could add a rw spinlock which mediates access to a "foreign" cpu counter (i.e., percpu_counter_add gets a shared lock, and percpu_counter_set needs an exclusive lock) but it's probably not worth it.
Actually, if all popular architectures had a hardware-implemented atomic_t, I wonder how much ext4 really needs the percpu counter, especially given ext4's multiblock allocator; with ext3, given that each block allocation required taking a per-filesystem spin lock, optimizing away that spinlock was far more important for improving ext3's scalability. But with the multiblock allocator, it may that we're going through a lot more effort than what is truly necessary.
- Ted
| |