[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121129185720.GE15094@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:57:20 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, zab@...hat.com, bcrl@...ck.org,
jmoyer@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/25] Generic dynamic per cpu refcounting
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:45:04AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com> writes:
>
> > This implements a refcount with similar semantics to
> > atomic_get()/atomic_dec_and_test(), that starts out as just an atomic_t
> > but dynamically switches to per cpu refcounting when the rate of
> > gets/puts becomes too high.
>
> This will only work if you put on the same CPU as you get, right?
Nope, no such restriction.
> In this case I would rather use RCU. It's clearly unusable for anything
> blocking (or not get_cpu) Normally RCU already handles the "ref count for short non
> blocking case"
The kioctx refcount isn't held for short nonblocking duration,
io_getevents() holds it and may block for arbitrarily long. Maybe SRCU
could be made to work for it (I havent' really looked at the RCU
variants) but it doesn't seem like a good idea.
This thing really is just a refcount, the percpu part isn't exposed to
the user at all.
--
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