From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: [patch] Avoid use of spinlock for percpu_counter
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:16:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060125231654.GB3658@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
The spinlock in struct percpu_counter protects just one counter. It's
not obvious why it was done this way (I am guessing it was because earlier,
atomic_t was guaranteed 24 bits only on some arches). Since we have
atomic_long_t now, I don't see why this cannot be replaced with an atomic_t.
Comments?
Index: linux-2.6.16-rc1/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.16-rc1.orig/include/linux/percpu_counter.h 2006-01-24 13:52:24.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc1/include/linux/percpu_counter.h 2006-01-24 14:10:26.000000000 -0800
@@ -15,8 +15,7 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
struct percpu_counter {
- spinlock_t lock;
- long count;
+ atomic_long_t count;
long *counters;
};
@@ -28,8 +27,7 @@ struct percpu_counter {
static inline void percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
- fbc->count = 0;
+ atomic_long_set(&fbc->count, 0);
fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(long);
}
@@ -42,7 +40,7 @@ void percpu_counter_mod(struct percpu_co
static inline long percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- return fbc->count;
+ return atomic_long_read(&fbc->count);
}
/*
@@ -51,7 +49,7 @@ static inline long percpu_counter_read(s
*/
static inline long percpu_counter_read_positive(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- long ret = fbc->count;
+ long ret = atomic_long_read(&fbc->count);
barrier(); /* Prevent reloads of fbc->count */
if (ret > 0)
Index: linux-2.6.16-rc1/mm/swap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.16-rc1.orig/mm/swap.c 2006-01-17 14:12:17.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc1/mm/swap.c 2006-01-24 14:23:20.000000000 -0800
@@ -449,9 +449,7 @@ void percpu_counter_mod(struct percpu_co
pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
count = *pcount + amount;
if (count >= FBC_BATCH || count <= -FBC_BATCH) {
- spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
- fbc->count += count;
- spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+ atomic_long_add(count, &fbc->count);
count = 0;
}
*pcount = count;
next reply other threads:[~2006-01-25 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-25 23:16 Ravikiran G Thirumalai [this message]
2006-01-26 14:17 ` [patch] Avoid use of spinlock for percpu_counter Eric Dumazet
2006-01-26 18:04 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
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=20060125231654.GB3658@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox