From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 23:04:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YvV86p5DjBLjjXHo@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgYnAPiGsh7H4BS_E1aMM46PdSGg8YqFhi2SpGw+Ac_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 02:52:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 2:38 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Exporting the functionality? Sure, no problem. Uninlining that one...
> > I suspect that it's OK, but I'd like to see profiling data; it's not
> > as if it would be hard to return to having it inlined, obviously.
>
> The only case where I think it might matter is in __d_lookup(), and
> it's probably not measurable.
>
> Yes, __d_lookup() does matter, but it only matters once you've fallen
> out of RCU mode, and at that point the cost of the function call is
> likely in the noise.
>
> I don't particularly like how it's inside that dentry hash chain loop,
> but realistically by then we've already done a function call for the
> dentry lock spinlock, so that loop already has to deal with it.
FWIW, I wonder if we should do
if (READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent) != parent)
continue;
before grabbing ->d_lock (and repeat the check after grabbing it,
of course). It's OK from correctness POV - we are OK with false
negatives from __d_lookup() if concurrent rename happens. And
it just might be a sufficiently large performance win...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-11 22:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-11 15:24 Ilya Dryomov
2022-08-11 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-11 20:55 ` Ilya Dryomov
2022-08-11 21:08 ` Jeff Layton
2022-08-11 21:22 ` Al Viro
2022-08-11 21:23 ` Al Viro
2022-08-11 21:30 ` Jeff Layton
2022-08-11 21:38 ` Al Viro
2022-08-11 21:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-11 22:04 ` Al Viro [this message]
2022-08-11 22:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-11 22:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-12 3:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-14 19:08 ` Al Viro
2022-08-14 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-14 20:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-14 21:20 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-08-11 22:44 ` Al Viro
2022-08-11 21:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-08-11 21:32 ` pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YvV86p5DjBLjjXHo@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®