lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dcache shrink list corruption?
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 05:18:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> and then suddenly it looks like we have a common exit sequence from
> that dentry_kill() function, no?
>
> (The earlier "unlock_on_failure" exit case is altogether a different case).
>
> I dunno. Maybe not a big deal, but one reason I prefer doing that
> "free" flag is because I really tend to prefer the simple case of
> lock-unlock pairing cleanly at the same level. NOT the pattern where
> you have one lock at one indentation level, paired with multiple
> unlocks for all the different cases.

Yeah, but... I have such variant, but the best I could get still generated
the code that wasn't particulary nice. Part might be gcc code generation
sucking for bool, part - extra register pressure... It has slightly lower
i-cache footprint, though, so it might be worth doing. Hell knows; that's a
fairly hot codepath, so let's do it that way - I've just pushed an alternative
branch with bool can_free variant; branches in question: vfs.git#for-linus and
vfs.git#dentry_kill-2. Help with profiling is needed; the loads to watch are
the ones where dentry_kill() + dentry_free() are sufficiently high in profiles
for the differences to matter. Any takers?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-01 05:21    [W:0.119 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site