lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] more vfs bits
Date
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> So the ACCESS_ONCE() thing is more special than just "done under RCU".
> It's more like "really special case done without any of the normal
> locking _or_ any of the normal RCU checks".
>
> That said, the overhead of using ACCESS_ONCE() is basically nil, so
> it's not like we couldn't just start doing more of them, and make it
> be more of a "any time we're under RCU" kind of thing.

Some functions access ->d_inode more than once. Wouldn't that potentially
increase the number of load instructions? Admittedly, calls to
dentry->d_inode could be replaced with inode = dentry->d_inode, then use
inode.

> Yeah, I think "d_backing_store_inode()" would probably be more along
> the lines, but that's a mouthful. Maybe shortened to
> "d_backing_inode()"?

Sounds more reasonable than d_opened_inode(). d_actual_inode() might also
work. d_lower_inode() might work too.

David


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-22 14:21    [W:1.524 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site