include/linux/uprobes.h | 4 + kernel/events/uprobes.c | 177 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
The uprobe handler allocates xol slot from xol_area and quickly release
it in the single-step handler. The atomic operations on the xol bitmap
and slot_count lead to expensive cache line bouncing between multiple
CPUs. Given the xol slot is on the hot path for uprobe and kretprobe
handling, the profiling results on some Arm64 machine show that nearly
80% of cycles are spent on this. So optimizing xol slot usage will
become important to scalability after the Andrii's series land.
This patch address this scalability issues from two perspectives:
- Allocated xol slot is now saved in the thread associated utask data.
It allows to reuse it throughout the therad's lifetime. This avoid
the frequent atomic operation on the slot bitmap and slot_count of
xol_area data, which is the major negative impact on scalability.
- A garbage collection routine xol_recycle_insn_slot() is introduced to
reclaim unused xol slots. utask instances that own xol slot but
haven't reclaimed them are linked in a linked list. When xol_area runs
out of slots, the garbage collection routine travel the list to free
one slot. Allocated xol slots is marked as unused in single-step
handler. While the marking relies on the refcount of utask instance,
due to thread can't run on multiple CPUs at same time, therefore, it
is unlikely CPUs take the refcount of same utask, minimizing cache
line bouncing.
Upon thread exit, the utask is deleted from the linked-list, and the
associated xol slot will be free.
v2->v1:
-------
As suggested by Andi Kleen [1], the updates to the garbage collection
list of xol slots is not a common case. This revision replaces the
complex lockless RCU scheme with a simple raw spinlock.
Here's an explanation of the locking and refcount update scheme in the
patch:
- area->gc_lock protects the write operations on the area->gc_list. This
includes inserting slot into area->gc_list in xol_get_insn_slot() and
removing slot from area->gc_list in xol_recycle_insn_slot().
- utask->slot_ref is used to track the status of uprobe_task instance
associated insn_slot. It has three values, the value of 1 means the
slot is free to use or recycle. The value of 2 means the slot is in
use. The value of 0 means the slot is being recycled. This design
ensure that slots in use aren't recycled from GC list and that slots
being recycled aren't available for uprobe use. For example,
refcount_inc_not_zero() turns the value from 1 to 2 in uprobe BRK
handling, Using refcount_dec() to turn it from 2 to 1 during uprobe
single-step handling. Using refcount_dec_if_one() to turn the value
from 1 to 0 when recycling slot from GC list.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZuwoUmqXrztp-Mzh@tassilo/
Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
---
include/linux/uprobes.h | 4 +
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 177 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h
index 2b294bf1881f..7a29fbe2a09f 100644
--- a/include/linux/uprobes.h
+++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h
@@ -77,6 +77,10 @@ struct uprobe_task {
struct uprobe *active_uprobe;
unsigned long xol_vaddr;
+ struct list_head gc;
+ refcount_t slot_ref;
+ int insn_slot;
+
struct arch_uprobe *auprobe;
struct return_instance *return_instances;
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index 2ec796e2f055..2d2ef2117a89 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ struct xol_area {
* the vma go away, and we must handle that reasonably gracefully.
*/
unsigned long vaddr; /* Page(s) of instruction slots */
+ struct list_head gc_list; /* The list for the
+ garbage slots */
+ raw_spinlock_t gc_lock; /* Hold for gc_list */
};
static void uprobe_warn(struct task_struct *t, const char *msg)
@@ -1551,6 +1554,8 @@ static struct xol_area *__create_xol_area(unsigned long vaddr)
area->vaddr = vaddr;
init_waitqueue_head(&area->wq);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&area->gc_list);
+ raw_spin_lock_init(&area->gc_lock);
/* Reserve the 1st slot for get_trampoline_vaddr() */
set_bit(0, area->bitmap);
atomic_set(&area->slot_count, 1);
@@ -1626,37 +1631,107 @@ void uprobe_dup_mmap(struct mm_struct *oldmm, struct mm_struct *newmm)
}
}
+/*
+ * Use the slot_ref to track the status of utask and avoid racing on
+ * the insn_slot field of utask instances linked on area->gc_list.
+ * - 1->2, insn_slot is in use.
+ * - 1->0, insn_slot is being recycled.
+ * - 2->1, insn_slot is free to use or recycle.
+ */
+static __always_inline
+struct uprobe_task *test_and_get_task_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask)
+{
+ return refcount_inc_not_zero(&utask->slot_ref) ? utask : NULL;
+}
+
+static __always_inline
+struct uprobe_task *test_and_put_task_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask)
+{
+ return refcount_dec_if_one(&utask->slot_ref) ? utask : NULL;
+}
+
+static __always_inline
+void put_task_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask)
+{
+ refcount_dec(&utask->slot_ref);
+}
+
+static __always_inline
+int recycle_utask_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct xol_area *area)
+{
+ int slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
+
+ /*
+ * Ensure that the slot is not in use on other CPU. However, this
+ * check is unnecessary when called in the context of an exiting
+ * thread. See xol_free_insn_slot() called from uprobe_free_utask()
+ * for more details.
+ */
+ if (test_and_put_task_slot(utask)) {
+ list_del(&utask->gc);
+ clear_bit(utask->insn_slot, area->bitmap);
+ atomic_dec(&area->slot_count);
+ utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
+ refcount_set(&utask->slot_ref, 1);
+ }
+
+ return slot;
+}
+
+/*
+ * xol_recycle_insn_slot - recycle a slot from the garbage collection list.
+ */
+static int xol_recycle_insn_slot(struct xol_area *area)
+{
+ struct uprobe_task *utask;
+ int slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
+
+ raw_spin_lock(&area->gc_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(utask, &area->gc_list, gc) {
+ slot = recycle_utask_slot(utask, area);
+ if (slot != UINSNS_PER_PAGE)
+ break;
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock(&area->gc_lock);
+
+ return slot;
+}
+
/*
* - search for a free slot.
*/
-static unsigned long xol_take_insn_slot(struct xol_area *area)
+static int xol_take_insn_slot(struct xol_area *area)
{
- unsigned long slot_addr;
int slot_nr;
do {
slot_nr = find_first_zero_bit(area->bitmap, UINSNS_PER_PAGE);
- if (slot_nr < UINSNS_PER_PAGE) {
- if (!test_and_set_bit(slot_nr, area->bitmap))
- break;
-
- slot_nr = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
- continue;
+ if (slot_nr == UINSNS_PER_PAGE) {
+ /* It recycles slot from GC list upon area runs out */
+ slot_nr = xol_recycle_insn_slot(area);
}
- wait_event(area->wq, (atomic_read(&area->slot_count) < UINSNS_PER_PAGE));
+
+ if (slot_nr == UINSNS_PER_PAGE)
+ wait_event(area->wq,
+ (atomic_read(&area->slot_count) <
+ UINSNS_PER_PAGE));
+ else if (!test_and_set_bit(slot_nr, area->bitmap))
+ break;
+
+ slot_nr = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
} while (slot_nr >= UINSNS_PER_PAGE);
- slot_addr = area->vaddr + (slot_nr * UPROBE_XOL_SLOT_BYTES);
atomic_inc(&area->slot_count);
- return slot_addr;
+ return slot_nr;
}
/*
* xol_get_insn_slot - allocate a slot for xol.
* Returns the allocated slot address or 0.
*/
-static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
+static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask,
+ struct uprobe *uprobe)
{
struct xol_area *area;
unsigned long xol_vaddr;
@@ -1665,16 +1740,46 @@ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
if (!area)
return 0;
- xol_vaddr = xol_take_insn_slot(area);
- if (unlikely(!xol_vaddr))
+ /*
+ * The racing on the utask associated slot_ref can occur unless the
+ * area runs out of slots. This isn't a common case. Even if it does
+ * happen, the scalability bottleneck will shift to another point.
+ */
+ if (!test_and_get_task_slot(utask))
return 0;
+ if (utask->insn_slot == UINSNS_PER_PAGE) {
+ utask->insn_slot = xol_take_insn_slot(area);
+ raw_spin_lock(&area->gc_lock);
+ list_add(&utask->gc, &area->gc_list);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&area->gc_lock);
+ }
+
+ xol_vaddr = area->vaddr + (utask->insn_slot * UPROBE_XOL_SLOT_BYTES);
+
arch_uprobe_copy_ixol(area->page, xol_vaddr,
&uprobe->arch.ixol, sizeof(uprobe->arch.ixol));
return xol_vaddr;
}
+/*
+ * xol_delay_free_insn_slot - Make the slot available for garbage collection
+ */
+static void xol_delay_free_insn_slot(void)
+{
+ struct xol_area *area = current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area;
+
+ /*
+ * This refcount would't cause expensive cache line bouncing
+ * between CPUs, as it is unlikely that multiple CPUs take the
+ * slot_ref of same utask.
+ */
+ put_task_slot(current->utask);
+ if (waitqueue_active(&area->wq))
+ wake_up(&area->wq);
+}
+
/*
* xol_free_insn_slot - If slot was earlier allocated by
* @xol_get_insn_slot(), make the slot available for
@@ -1683,35 +1788,21 @@ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
static void xol_free_insn_slot(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
struct xol_area *area;
- unsigned long vma_end;
- unsigned long slot_addr;
if (!tsk->mm || !tsk->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area || !tsk->utask)
return;
- slot_addr = tsk->utask->xol_vaddr;
- if (unlikely(!slot_addr))
- return;
-
area = tsk->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area;
- vma_end = area->vaddr + PAGE_SIZE;
- if (area->vaddr <= slot_addr && slot_addr < vma_end) {
- unsigned long offset;
- int slot_nr;
-
- offset = slot_addr - area->vaddr;
- slot_nr = offset / UPROBE_XOL_SLOT_BYTES;
- if (slot_nr >= UINSNS_PER_PAGE)
- return;
- clear_bit(slot_nr, area->bitmap);
- atomic_dec(&area->slot_count);
- smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* pairs with prepare_to_wait() */
- if (waitqueue_active(&area->wq))
- wake_up(&area->wq);
+ raw_spin_lock(&area->gc_lock);
+ recycle_utask_slot(tsk->utask, area);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&area->gc_lock);
- tsk->utask->xol_vaddr = 0;
- }
+ smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* pairs with prepare_to_wait() */
+ if (waitqueue_active(&area->wq))
+ wake_up(&area->wq);
+
+ tsk->utask->xol_vaddr = 0;
}
void __weak arch_uprobe_copy_ixol(struct page *page, unsigned long vaddr,
@@ -1792,8 +1883,12 @@ void uprobe_free_utask(struct task_struct *t)
*/
static struct uprobe_task *get_utask(void)
{
- if (!current->utask)
+ if (!current->utask) {
current->utask = kzalloc(sizeof(struct uprobe_task), GFP_KERNEL);
+ current->utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(¤t->utask->gc);
+ refcount_set(¤t->utask->slot_ref, 1);
+ }
return current->utask;
}
@@ -1991,7 +2086,7 @@ pre_ssout(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long bp_vaddr)
if (!try_get_uprobe(uprobe))
return -EINVAL;
- xol_vaddr = xol_get_insn_slot(uprobe);
+ xol_vaddr = xol_get_insn_slot(utask, uprobe);
if (!xol_vaddr) {
err = -ENOMEM;
goto err_out;
@@ -2001,10 +2096,8 @@ pre_ssout(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long bp_vaddr)
utask->vaddr = bp_vaddr;
err = arch_uprobe_pre_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
- if (unlikely(err)) {
- xol_free_insn_slot(current);
+ if (unlikely(err))
goto err_out;
- }
utask->active_uprobe = uprobe;
utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP;
@@ -2353,7 +2446,7 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
put_uprobe(uprobe);
utask->active_uprobe = NULL;
utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
- xol_free_insn_slot(current);
+ xol_delay_free_insn_slot();
spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
--
2.34.1在 2024/9/27 17:45, Liao Chang 写道: >> 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >> > Liao, > > Assuming your ARM64 improvements go through, would you still need > these changes? XOL case is a slow case and if possible should be > avoided at all costs. If all common cases for ARM64 are covered > through instruction emulation, would we need to add all this > complexity to optimize slow case? Andrii, I've studied the optimizations merged over the past month, it seems that part of the problem addressed in this patch has been resolved by Oleg(uprobes: kill xol_area->slot_count). And I hope you've received the email with the re-run results for -push using simulated STP on the latest kernel (tag next-20241104). It show significant improvements, althought there's still room to match the throughput of -nop and -ret. So based on these results, I would prioritize the STP simulation patch. -- BR Liao, Chang
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:12 AM Liao, Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > 在 2024/9/27 17:45, Liao Chang 写道: > >> 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) > >> > > Liao, > > > > Assuming your ARM64 improvements go through, would you still need > > these changes? XOL case is a slow case and if possible should be > > avoided at all costs. If all common cases for ARM64 are covered > > through instruction emulation, would we need to add all this > > complexity to optimize slow case? > > Andrii, > > I've studied the optimizations merged over the past month, it seems > that part of the problem addressed in this patch has been resolved > by Oleg(uprobes: kill xol_area->slot_count). And I hope you've received > the email with the re-run results for -push using simulated STP on > the latest kernel (tag next-20241104). It show significant improvements, > althought there's still room to match the throughput of -nop and -ret. > So based on these results, I would prioritize the STP simulation patch. Great, I was hoping that Oleg's patches would help. And yes, I absolutely agree, STP simulation to avoid kernel->user->kernel switch is probably the biggest bang for the buck for ARM64 specifically now. Can you please send a fastest simulation approach that works like x86-64, and we can try to continue conversation on the refreshed patch? > > -- > BR > Liao, Chang >
On 09/27, Liao Chang wrote: > > The uprobe handler allocates xol slot from xol_area and quickly release > it in the single-step handler. The atomic operations on the xol bitmap > and slot_count lead to expensive cache line bouncing between multiple > CPUs. Liao, could you please check if this series [PATCH 0/2] uprobes: kill xol_area->slot_count https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241001142416.GA13599@redhat.com/ makes any difference performance-wise in your testing? Oleg.
在 2024/10/1 22:29, Oleg Nesterov 写道: > On 09/27, Liao Chang wrote: >> >> The uprobe handler allocates xol slot from xol_area and quickly release >> it in the single-step handler. The atomic operations on the xol bitmap >> and slot_count lead to expensive cache line bouncing between multiple >> CPUs. > > Liao, could you please check if this series > > [PATCH 0/2] uprobes: kill xol_area->slot_count > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241001142416.GA13599@redhat.com/ > > makes any difference performance-wise in your testing? OK, I am ready to test this patch on my arm64 machine. > > Oleg. > > -- BR Liao, Chang
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 2:56 AM Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com> wrote: > > The uprobe handler allocates xol slot from xol_area and quickly release > it in the single-step handler. The atomic operations on the xol bitmap > and slot_count lead to expensive cache line bouncing between multiple > CPUs. Given the xol slot is on the hot path for uprobe and kretprobe > handling, the profiling results on some Arm64 machine show that nearly > 80% of cycles are spent on this. So optimizing xol slot usage will > become important to scalability after the Andrii's series land. > > This patch address this scalability issues from two perspectives: > > - Allocated xol slot is now saved in the thread associated utask data. > It allows to reuse it throughout the therad's lifetime. This avoid > the frequent atomic operation on the slot bitmap and slot_count of > xol_area data, which is the major negative impact on scalability. > > - A garbage collection routine xol_recycle_insn_slot() is introduced to > reclaim unused xol slots. utask instances that own xol slot but > haven't reclaimed them are linked in a linked list. When xol_area runs > out of slots, the garbage collection routine travel the list to free > one slot. Allocated xol slots is marked as unused in single-step > handler. While the marking relies on the refcount of utask instance, > due to thread can't run on multiple CPUs at same time, therefore, it > is unlikely CPUs take the refcount of same utask, minimizing cache > line bouncing. > > Upon thread exit, the utask is deleted from the linked-list, and the > associated xol slot will be free. > > v2->v1: > ------- > As suggested by Andi Kleen [1], the updates to the garbage collection > list of xol slots is not a common case. This revision replaces the > complex lockless RCU scheme with a simple raw spinlock. > > Here's an explanation of the locking and refcount update scheme in the > patch: > > - area->gc_lock protects the write operations on the area->gc_list. This > includes inserting slot into area->gc_list in xol_get_insn_slot() and > removing slot from area->gc_list in xol_recycle_insn_slot(). > > - utask->slot_ref is used to track the status of uprobe_task instance > associated insn_slot. It has three values, the value of 1 means the > slot is free to use or recycle. The value of 2 means the slot is in > use. The value of 0 means the slot is being recycled. This design > ensure that slots in use aren't recycled from GC list and that slots > being recycled aren't available for uprobe use. For example, > refcount_inc_not_zero() turns the value from 1 to 2 in uprobe BRK > handling, Using refcount_dec() to turn it from 2 to 1 during uprobe > single-step handling. Using refcount_dec_if_one() to turn the value > from 1 to 0 when recycling slot from GC list. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZuwoUmqXrztp-Mzh@tassilo/ > > Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com> > --- > include/linux/uprobes.h | 4 + > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 177 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) > Liao, Assuming your ARM64 improvements go through, would you still need these changes? XOL case is a slow case and if possible should be avoided at all costs. If all common cases for ARM64 are covered through instruction emulation, would we need to add all this complexity to optimize slow case? [...]
On 09/27, Liao Chang wrote:
>
> +int recycle_utask_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct xol_area *area)
> +{
> + int slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the slot is not in use on other CPU. However, this
> + * check is unnecessary when called in the context of an exiting
> + * thread. See xol_free_insn_slot() called from uprobe_free_utask()
> + * for more details.
> + */
> + if (test_and_put_task_slot(utask)) {
> + list_del(&utask->gc);
> + clear_bit(utask->insn_slot, area->bitmap);
> + atomic_dec(&area->slot_count);
> + utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
> + refcount_set(&utask->slot_ref, 1);
This lacks a barrier, CPU can reorder the last 2 insns
refcount_set(&utask->slot_ref, 1);
utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
so the "utask->insn_slot == UINSNS_PER_PAGE" check in xol_get_insn_slot()
can be false negative.
> +static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask,
> + struct uprobe *uprobe)
> {
> struct xol_area *area;
> unsigned long xol_vaddr;
> @@ -1665,16 +1740,46 @@ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
> if (!area)
> return 0;
>
> - xol_vaddr = xol_take_insn_slot(area);
> - if (unlikely(!xol_vaddr))
> + /*
> + * The racing on the utask associated slot_ref can occur unless the
> + * area runs out of slots. This isn't a common case. Even if it does
> + * happen, the scalability bottleneck will shift to another point.
> + */
I don't understand the comment, I guess it means the race with
recycle_utask_slot() above.
> + if (!test_and_get_task_slot(utask))
> return 0;
No, we can't do this. xol_get_insn_slot() should never fail.
OK, OK, currently xol_get_insn_slot() _can_ fail, but only if get_xol_area()
fails to allocate the memory. Which should "never" happen and we can do nothing
in this case anyway.
But it certainly must not fail if it races with another thread, this is insane.
And. This patch changes the functions which ask for cleanups. I'll try to send
a couple of simple patches on Monday.
Oleg.
Oleg,
My bad to take so long to reply. I have recently returned from a long vacation.
在 2024/9/28 1:18, Oleg Nesterov 写道:
> On 09/27, Liao Chang wrote:
>>
>> +int recycle_utask_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct xol_area *area)
>> +{
>> + int slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Ensure that the slot is not in use on other CPU. However, this
>> + * check is unnecessary when called in the context of an exiting
>> + * thread. See xol_free_insn_slot() called from uprobe_free_utask()
>> + * for more details.
>> + */
>> + if (test_and_put_task_slot(utask)) {
>> + list_del(&utask->gc);
>> + clear_bit(utask->insn_slot, area->bitmap);
>> + atomic_dec(&area->slot_count);
>> + utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
>> + refcount_set(&utask->slot_ref, 1);
>
> This lacks a barrier, CPU can reorder the last 2 insns
>
> refcount_set(&utask->slot_ref, 1);
> utask->insn_slot = UINSNS_PER_PAGE;
>
> so the "utask->insn_slot == UINSNS_PER_PAGE" check in xol_get_insn_slot()
> can be false negative.
Good catcha! Would an atomic_set() with release ordering be sufficient here
instead of smp_mb()?
>
>> +static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe_task *utask,
>> + struct uprobe *uprobe)
>> {
>> struct xol_area *area;
>> unsigned long xol_vaddr;
>> @@ -1665,16 +1740,46 @@ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
>> if (!area)
>> return 0;
>>
>> - xol_vaddr = xol_take_insn_slot(area);
>> - if (unlikely(!xol_vaddr))
>> + /*
>> + * The racing on the utask associated slot_ref can occur unless the
>> + * area runs out of slots. This isn't a common case. Even if it does
>> + * happen, the scalability bottleneck will shift to another point.
>> + */
>
> I don't understand the comment, I guess it means the race with
> recycle_utask_slot() above.
> >> + if (!test_and_get_task_slot(utask))
Exactly, While introducing another refcount operation here might seem like
a downside, the potential racing on it should be less than the ones on
xol_area->bitmap and xol_area->slot_count(which you've already optimized).
>> return 0;
>
> No, we can't do this. xol_get_insn_slot() should never fail.
>
> OK, OK, currently xol_get_insn_slot() _can_ fail, but only if get_xol_area()
> fails to allocate the memory. Which should "never" happen and we can do nothing
> in this case anyway.
Sorry, I haven't trace the exact path where xol_get_insn_slot() fails. I suspect
it might repeatedly trigger BRK exceptions before get_xol_area() successfully
returns. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> But it certainly must not fail if it races with another thread, this is insane.
Agreed, it is somewhat costly when race fails. I suggest that it allocates a new
slot upon the race fails instead of returning 0.
>
> And. This patch changes the functions which ask for cleanups. I'll try to send
> a couple of simple patches on Monday.
Thank you for pointing that out, I must have missed some patches while I was on
vacation, I will carefully review the mailing list to ensure that this patch can
work with any recent cleanups.
>
> Oleg.
>
>
--
BR
Liao, Chang
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.