Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:34:02 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, adobriyan@gmail.com,
        serge@hallyn.com, arozansk@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ipc: convert ipc_namespace.count from atomic_t to
 refcount_t
Message-ID: <20170720093402.55alnsgsodgs4mfk@gmail.com>
References: <1499417992-3238-1-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
 <1499417992-3238-2-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com>
 <87bmottgo4.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20170719153546.37567fbf77861653172fa263@linux-foundation.org>
 <20170719225427.GD14395@linux-80c1.suse>
 <20170719155833.641a283467bf6b89a7d2e56b@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170719155833.641a283467bf6b89a7d2e56b@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1513
Lines: 40


* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 15:54:27 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > >I do rather dislike these conversions from the point of view of
> > >performance overhead and general code bloat.  But I seem to have lost
> > >that struggle and I don't think any of these are fastpath(?).
> > 
> > Well, since we now have fd25d19 (locking/refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t
> > implementation), performance is supposed to be ok.
> 
> Sure, things are OK for people who disable the feature.

So with the WIP fast-refcount series from Kees:

	[PATCH v6 0/2] x86: Implement fast refcount overflow protection

I believe the robustness difference between optimized-refcount_t and 
full-refcount_t will be marginal.

I.e. we'll be able to have both higher API safety _and_ performance.

> But for people who want to enable the feature we really should minimize the cost 
> by avoiding blindly converting sites which simply don't need it: simple, safe, 
> old, well-tested code.  Why go and slow down such code?  Need to apply some 
> common sense here...

It's old, well-tested code _for existing, sane parameters_, until someone finds a 
decade old bug in one of these with an insane parameters no-one stumbled upon so 
far, and builds an exploit on top of it.

Only by touching all these places do we have a chance to improve things measurably 
in terms of reducing the probability of bugs.

Thanks,

	Ingo