[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] cxgb4: sched: Use refcount_t for refcount
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:27 AM Chuhong Yuan <> wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn <> 于2019年8月2日周五 下午9:40写道:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:36 AM Chuhong Yuan <> wrote:
> > >
> > > refcount_t is better for reference counters since its
> > > implementation can prevent overflows.
> > > So convert atomic_t ref counters to refcount_t.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Convert refcount from 0-base to 1-base.
> >
> > This changes the initial value from 0 to 1, but does not change the
> > release condition. So this introduces an accounting bug?
> I have noticed this problem and have checked other files which use refcount_t.
> I find although the refcounts are 1-based, they still use
> refcount_dec_and_test()
> to check whether the resource should be released.
> One example is drivers/char/mspec.c.
> Therefore I think this is okay and do not change the release condition.

Indeed it is fine to use refcount_t with a model where the initial
allocation already accounts for the first reference and thus
initializes with refcount_set(.., 1).

But it is not correct to just change a previously zero initialization
to one. As now an extra refcount_dec will be needed to release state.
But the rest of the code has not changed, so this extra decrement will
not happen.

For a correct conversion, see for instance commits

commit db5bce32fbe19f0c7482fb5a40a33178bbe7b11b
net: prepare (struct ubuf_info)->refcnt conversion


commit c1d1b437816f0afa99202be3cb650c9d174667bc
net: convert (struct ubuf_info)->refcnt to refcount_t

The second makes a search-and-replace style API change like your
patches (though also notice the additional required #include).

But the other patch is needed first to change both the initial
atomic_set *and* at least one atomic_inc, to maintain the same
reference count over the object's lifetime.

That change requires understanding of the object's lifecycle, so I
suggest only making those changes when aware of that whole data path.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-02 16:54    [W:0.061 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site