Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <dbe336c7d7618db4c56613fa53479c18df1e0b9b.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ipc/msg: mitigate the lock contention with percpu
 counter
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jiebin Sun <jiebin.sun@intel.com>, vasily.averin@linux.dev,
        shakeelb@google.com, dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        cl@linux.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, legion@kernel.org,
        manfred@colorfullife.com, alexander.mikhalitsyn@virtuozzo.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tim.c.chen@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
        tianyou.li@intel.com, wangyang.guo@intel.com
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2022 15:10:11 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20220907143427.0ce54bbf096943ffca197fee@linux-foundation.org>
References: <CALvZod44uUFnwfF4StC24t+d1s_XE10hkmSCgb04FjtTATo6xQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <20220907172516.1210842-1-jiebin.sun@intel.com>
         <eb13cb3e5e1625afe1bb783810f4d6b52a66a2f6.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20220907143427.0ce54bbf096943ffca197fee@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 (3.34.4-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 14:34 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> I think this concept of a percpu_counter_add() which is massively
> biased to the write side and with very rare reading is a legitimate
> use-case.  Perhaps it should become an addition to the formal interface.
> Something like
> 
> /* 
>  * comment goes here
>  */
> static inline void percpu_counter_add_local(struct percpu_counter *fbc,
> 					    s64 amount)
> {
> 	percpu_counter_add_batch(fbc, amount, INT_MAX);
> }
> 
> and percpu_counter_sub_local(), I guess.
> 
> The only instance I can see is
> block/blk-cgroup-rwstat.h:blkg_rwstat_add() which is using INT_MAX/2
> because it always uses percpu_counter_sum_positive() on the read side.
> 
> But that makes two!

Sure. We can create this function and use it for both cases.  No objections.

Tim