[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:21:05PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, we can add unlocked checks on the three hot spots.
> After following patch, a close(socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) pair on
> my dev machine takes ~3us instead of ~9us.
> Maybe its better to split it in three patches, just let me know.

I think three patches would be a lot cleaner.

As for safety of the unlocked checks:

- inode are either hashed when created or never, so that one looks
- same for the sb list.
- the writeback list is a bit more dynamic as we move things around
quite a bit. But in additon to the inode_wb_list_del call from
evict() it only ever gets remove in writeback_single_inode, which
for a freeing inode can only be called from the callers of evict().

Btw, I wonder if you should micro-optimize things a bit further by
moving the unhashed checks from the deletion functions into the callers
and thus save a function call for each of them.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-27 22:47    [W:0.098 / U:1.340 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site