lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto: hisilicon/qm - defining the device isolation strategy
From
Date


On 2022/6/14 21:29, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 09:24:08PM +0800, yekai(A) wrote:
>>>> struct hisi_qm {
>>>> enum qm_hw_ver ver;
>>>> enum qm_fun_type fun_type;
>>>> @@ -335,6 +341,9 @@ struct hisi_qm {
>>>> struct qm_shaper_factor *factor;
>>>> u32 mb_qos;
>>>> u32 type_rate;
>>>> + struct list_head uacce_hw_errs;
>>>> + atomic_t uacce_ref; /* reference of the uacce */
>>>
>>> That is not how reference counts work, sorry. Please use 'struct kref'
>>> for a real reference count, never roll your own.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> this atomic_t reference is lightweight than 'struct kref',
>
> It's the same size, why would it be "lighter"? Why do you need it to be
> lighter, what performance issue is there with a kref?
>
>> this reference
>> means whether the task is running. So would it be better to use atomic_t
>> reference?
>
> I do not know, as "running or not running" is a state, not a count or a
> reference. why does this have to be atomic at all?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> .
>

I will use 'qm_state' instead of reference count by zhangfei Gao's opinion.

Thanks
Kai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-15 11:11    [W:0.044 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site