[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi=CDyS_ebXw745OCXnhwDpVLnahNveQNcZOPrzE5QiQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:36:06 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Wangyang Guo <wangyang.guo@...el.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] atomics: Provide rcuref - scalable reference counting
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:05 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> The result of staring more is:
>
> get():
> 6b57: f0 41 83 45 40 01 lock addl $0x1,0x40(%r13)
> 6b5d: 0f 88 cd 00 00 00 js 6c30 // -> slowpath if negative
[ rest removed ]
Yeah, so this looks like I was hoping for.
That PREEMPT=y case of 'put() makes me slightly unhappy, and I'm
wondering if it can be improved with better placement of the
preempt_disable/enable, but apart from maybe some massaging to that I
don't see a good way to avoid it.
And the ugliness is mostly about the preemption side, not about the
refcount itself. I've looked at that "preempt_enable ->
preempt_schedule" code generation before, and I've disliked it before,
and I don't have an answer to it.
> but the actual network code does some sanity checking:
Ok. Not pretty. But at least it's just an xadd on the access itself,
there's just some extra noise around it.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists