Hello, Waiman.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 12:16:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +/**
> + * __percpu_stats_add - add given count to percpu value
> + * @pcs : Pointer to percpu_stats structure
> + * @stat: The statistics count that needs to be updated
> + * @cnt: The value to be added to the statistics count
> + */
> +void __percpu_stats_add(struct percpu_stats *pcs, int stat, int cnt)
> +{
> + /*
> + * u64_stats_update_begin/u64_stats_update_end alone are not safe
> + * against recursive add on the same CPU caused by interrupt.
> + * So we need to set the PCPU_STAT_INTSAFE flag if this is required.
> + */
> + if (IS_STATS64(pcs)) {
> + uint64_t *pstats64;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + pstats64 = get_cpu_ptr(pcs->stats64);
> + if (pcs->flags & PCPU_STAT_INTSAFE)
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> +
> + u64_stats_update_begin(&pcs->sync);
> + pstats64[stat] += cnt;
> + u64_stats_update_end(&pcs->sync);
> +
> + if (pcs->flags & PCPU_STAT_INTSAFE)
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> + put_cpu_ptr(pcs->stats64);
> + }
> +}
Heh, that's a handful, and, right, u64_stats needs separate irq
protection. I'm not sure. If we have to do the above, it's likely
that it'll perform worse than percpu_counter on 32bits. On 64bits,
percpu_counter would incur extra preempt_disable/enable() operations
but that comes from it not using this_cpu_add_return(). I wonder
whether it'd be better to either use percpu_counter instead or if
necessary extend it to handle multiple counters. What do you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
