From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
keescook@chromium.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: switch to atomic_t for request references
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 09:31:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ya3KZiLg5lYjsGcQ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ya2zfVAwh4aQ7KVd@infradead.org>
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 10:53:49PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 08:35:40AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > refcount_t is not as expensive as it used to be, but it's still more
> > expensive than the io_uring method of using atomic_t and just checking
> > for potential over/underflow.
> >
> > This borrows that same implementation, which in turn is based on the
> > mm implementation from Linus.
>
> If refcount_t isn't good enough for a normal kernel fast path we have
> a problem. Can we discuss that with the maintainers instead of coming
> up with our home grown schemes again?
Quite; and for something that pretends to be about performance, it also
lacks any actual numbers to back that claim.
The proposed implementation also doesn't do nearly as much as the
refcount_t one does.
Anyway refcount_t is just a single "lock xadd" and a few branches, where
does it go wrong? Do you have perf output to compare between them?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-06 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-03 15:35 [PATCH] block: switch to atomic_t for request references Jens Axboe
2021-12-03 15:56 ` Keith Busch
2021-12-06 6:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-06 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-12-06 16:32 ` Jens Axboe
2021-12-06 17:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-06 18:13 ` Jens Axboe
2021-12-06 20:51 ` Kees Cook
2021-12-06 21:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-06 23:28 ` Kees Cook
2021-12-07 0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 4:56 ` Kees Cook
2021-12-07 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 16:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 16:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 16:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-06 16:31 ` Jens Axboe
2021-12-07 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 13:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 16:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 16:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 17:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 17:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-07 20:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-07 23:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-08 17:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-08 18:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-08 18:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-08 18:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-12-08 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-10 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-10 12:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Ya3KZiLg5lYjsGcQ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.