Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:43:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: David Windsor <dave@progbits.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] kref: Add kref_read()
Message-ID: <20161117124339.GC3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20161114173946.501528675@infradead.org>
 <20161114174446.486581399@infradead.org>
 <20161115073322.GC28248@kroah.com>
 <20161115080314.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5jLNduviFkM1A4ozub_n2uB2nAHrhE41BsPFJZq+uhn4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161116100925.GM3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5jL0LD22TnEfu8QTG29Apr09Zht-gekNjnBHcnCLxBbLUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161117083458.GZ3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAEXv5_gS4iuHNQtRz=swKJFH06KUJvg9-Ov+XLTptgo1tnAguw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEXv5_gS4iuHNQtRz=swKJFH06KUJvg9-Ov+XLTptgo1tnAguw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 825
Lines: 18

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 07:30:29AM -0500, David Windsor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > No, its not a statistic. Also, I'm far from convinced stats_t is an
> > actually useful thing to have.
> >
> 
> Regarding this, has there been any thought given as to how stats_t
> will meaningfully differ from atomic_t?  If refcount_t is semantically
> "atomic_t with reference counter overflow protection," what
> services/guarantees does stats_t provide?  I cannot think of any that
> don't require implementing overflow detection of some sort, which
> incurs a performance hit.

Afaict the whole point of stats_t was to allow overflow, since its only
stats, nobody cares etc..

I think the sole motivator is a general distaste of atomic_t, which
isn't a good reason at all.