On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > @@ -639,7 +639,10 @@ svc_prepare_thread(struct svc_serv *serv, struct svc_pool *pool, int node) > > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > > > svc_get(serv); > > - serv->sv_nrthreads++; > > + spin_lock_bh(&serv->sv_lock); > > + serv->sv_nrthreads += 1; > > + spin_unlock_bh(&serv->sv_lock); > > atomic_t would be somewhat lighter weight. Can it be used here > instead? > We could.... but sv_nrthreads is read-mostly. There are 11 places where we would need to call "atomic_read()", and just two where we benefit from the simplicity of atomic_inc/dec. And even if I did achieve dynamic threads count management, we would not be changing sv_nrthreads often enough that any performance difference would be noticeable. So I'd rather stick with using the spinlock and keeping the read-side simple. Thanks, NeilBrown
