On 7/16/07, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- if (notify_on_release(cont)) { + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&css->refcnt) && notify_on_release(cont)) {
This seems like a good idea, as long as atomic_dec_and_test() isn't noticeably more expensive than atomic_dec(). I assume it shouldn't need to be, since the bus locking operations are presumably the same in each case.
mutex_lock(&container_mutex); set_bit(CONT_RELEASABLE, &cont->flags); - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&css->refcnt)) { - check_for_release(cont); - } + check_for_release(cont); mutex_unlock(&container_mutex); That way we set the CONT_RELEASABLE bit only when the ref count drops to zero.
That's probably a good idea, in conjunction with another part of my patch for this that frees container objects under RCU - as soon as you do the atomic_dec_and_test(), then in theory some other thread could delete the container (since we're no longer going to be taking container_mutex in this function). But as long as the container object remains valid until synchronize_rcu() completes, then we can safely set the CONT_RELEASABLE bit on it.
Yes, that is correct, the advantage is that with can_destroy() we don't need to go through release synchronization each time we do a css_put().
I think the amount of release synchronization *needed* is going to be the same whether you have the refcounting done in the subsystem or in the framework. But I agree that right now we're doing one more atomic op than we strictly need to, and can remove it. Paul - 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/