Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:19:50 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion |
| |
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:58:53PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >From your description, you seem to be very confused about what "child > == NULL" means. Here it means that it's a cursor to the beginning, but > in your commentary on move_cursor(), you say "moves cursor immediately > past child *or* to the very end if child is NULL". > > That's very confusing. Is NULL beginning or end?
The former for argument, the latter for return value...
> > unsigned *seq = &parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq, n; > > do { > > int i = count; > > n = smp_load_acquire(seq) & ~1; > > rcu_read_lock(); > > do { > > p = p->next; > > if (p == &parent->d_subdirs) { > > child = NULL; > > break; > > } > > look, here you return NULL for "end" again. Even though it meant > beginning at the start of the function. Nasty.
Actually, reassigning 'child' here was broken, NULL or no NULL - we want the subsequent retries (if any) to start at the same state.
> Also, may I suggest that there is a very trivial special case for > "next_positive()" that needs no barriers or sequence checking or > anything else: at the very beginning, just load the "->next" pointer, > and if it's a positive entry, you're done. That's going to be the > common case when there _isn't_ crazy multi-threaded readdirs going on, > so it's worth handling separately.
Point.
> In fact, if you have a special value for the case of "cursor is at > end" situation, then for the small directory case that can be handled > with a single getdents call, you'll *never* set the cursor in the > child list at all, which means that the above special case for > next_positive() is actually the common case even for the threaded > situation.
Not really. Cursor is allocated on the child list in the first place; it's just that its position is ignored for file->f_pos <= 2. We could change that, but I'd rather avoid the headache right now.
| |