Re: [PATCH] New operation for kref to help avoid locks
From: Corey Minyard (minyard_at_acm.org)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:54:33 -0600 To: Arjan van de Ven <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:15 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>>On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:23:04PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>Add a routine to kref that allows the kref_put() routine to be
>>>unserialized even when the get routine attempts to kref_get()
>>>an object without first holding a valid reference to it. This is
>>>useful in situations where this happens multiple times without
>>>freeing the object, as it will avoid having to do a lock/semaphore
>>>except on the final kref_put().
>>>This also adds some kref documentation to the Documentation
>>I like the first part of the documentation, that's nice.
>>But I don't like the new kref_get_with_check() function that you
>>implemented. If you look in the -mm tree, kref_put() now returns if
>>this was the last put on the reference count or not, to help with lists
>>of objects with a kref in it.
>>Perhaps you can use that to implement what you need instead?
Yes, that helps a lot. I had actually already implemented something
like that :). But that's a different thing than avoiding the lock.
It's just that with the I2C stuff, you may be calling kref_put() 20-30
times for a single operation. That's a lot of lock/unlock operations.
But it is wierd, so I understand. Thanks.
>note that I'm not convinced the "lockless" implementation actually is
>faster. It still uses an atomic variable, which is just as expensive as
>taking a lock normally...
Just doing an atomic operation is not faster than doing a lock, an
atomic operation, then an unlock? Am I missing something?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/