Linux Ethernet Bridging - Mar 2017 - [Bridge] [PATCH 07/17] net: convert sock.sk_refcnt from atomic_t to refcount_t

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 07:42 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> 
>> Should we then first measure the actual numbers to understand what we
>> are talking here about? 
>> I would be glad to do it if you suggest what is the correct way to do
>> measurements here to actually reflect the real life use cases. 
> 
> How have these patches been tested in real life exactly ?
> 
> Can you quantify number of added cycles per TCP packet, where I expect
> we have maybe 20 atomic operations in all layers ...
I completely agree.  I think this thing needs to default to the
existing atomic_t behaviour.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

From: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:47:59 +0800
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 07:42 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>> 
>>> Should we then first measure the actual numbers to understand what
we
>>> are talking here about? 
>>> I would be glad to do it if you suggest what is the correct way to
do
>>> measurements here to actually reflect the real life use cases. 
>> 
>> How have these patches been tested in real life exactly ?
>> 
>> Can you quantify number of added cycles per TCP packet, where I expect
>> we have maybe 20 atomic operations in all layers ...
> 
> I completely agree.  I think this thing needs to default to the
> existing atomic_t behaviour.
I totally agree as well, the refcount_t facility as-is is unacceptable
for networking.