On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:12:46 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Original comment seemed to indicate that this conditional thing was
> > performance related. Is it really? If not, we should consider the below
> > patch.
>
> Yes, it's a performance gain and I don't see how this patch would change
> the above warning.
I suspect it's a false optimisation.
int kref_put(struct kref *kref, void (*release)(struct kref *kref))
{
WARN_ON(release == NULL);
WARN_ON(release == (void (*)(struct kref *))kfree);
/*
* if current count is one, we are the last user and can release object
* right now, avoiding an atomic operation on 'refcount'
*/
if ((atomic_read(&kref->refcount) == 1) ||
(atomic_dec_and_test(&kref->refcount))) {
release(kref);
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
The only time we avoid the atomic_dec_and_test() is when the object is
about to be freed. ie: once in its entire lifetime. And freeing the
object is part of an expensive (and rare) operation anyway.
otoh, we've gone and added a test-n-branch to the common case: those cases
where the object will not be freed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
