[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1490194444.16816.154.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:54:04 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/17] net: convert sock.sk_refcnt from atomic_t to
refcount_t
On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 15:33 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> But I would feel a whole lot better about the entire thing if we could
> measure their impact. It would also give us good precedent to whack
> other potential users of _nocheck over the head with -- show numbers.
I wont be able to measure the impact on real workloads, our productions
kernels are based on 4.3 at this moment.
I guess someone could code a lib/test_refcount.c launching X threads
using either atomic_inc or refcount_inc() in a loop.
That would give a rough estimate of the refcount_t overhead among
various platforms.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists