[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061213164159.f93cde95.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:41:59 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Arjan <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kref refcnt and false positives
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote:
> > Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
> > performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below patch.
>
> Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how this patch would change
> the above warning.
I suspect it's a false optimisation.
int kref_put(struct kref *kref, void (*release)(struct kref *kref))
{
WARN_ON(release == NULL);
WARN_ON(release == (void (*)(struct kref *))kfree);
/*
* if current count is one, we are the last user and can release object
* right now, avoiding an atomic operation on 'refcount'
*/
if ((atomic_read(&kref->refcount) == 1) ||
(atomic_dec_and_test(&kref->refcount))) {
release(kref);
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
The only time we avoid the atomic_dec_and_test() is when the object is
about to be freed. ie: once in its entire lifetime. And freeing the
object is part of an expensive (and rare) operation anyway.
otoh, we've gone and added a test-n-branch to the common case: those cases
where the object will not be freed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists