[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180504162640.GH30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 17:26:40 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:21:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > do you intend to kill refcount_dec_and_lock() in the longterm?
>
> You meant to say atomic_dec_and_lock() ? Dunno if we ever get there, but
> typically dec_and_lock is fairly refcounty, but I suppose it is possible
> to have !refcount users, in which case we're eternally stuck with it.
Yes, there are - consider e.g.
void iput(struct inode *inode)
{
if (!inode)
return;
BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR);
retry:
if (atomic_dec_and_lock(&inode->i_count, &inode->i_lock)) {
inode->i_count sure as hell isn't refcount_t fodder...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists