于 2010-7-12 22:29, crosslonelyover 写道:
Hi,
I walked through ext2_xattr_get, and felt that we can
do some optimization on it. For name_len check, it's done
after down xattr_sem and sb_read, both of which are time
consuming operation compared with strlen:
down_read(&EXT2_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
...
bh = sb_bread(inode->i_sb, EXT2_I(inode)->i_file_acl);
...
/* find named attribute */
name_len = strlen(name);
error = -ERANGE;
if (name_len> 255)
goto cleanup;
Most of the case, you'll get one valid block, but if the
name len> 255, then the xattr_sem down and sb_bread operation
can be seen as a waste of time. So I think we'd better do
name len check as early as possible.
Following is my patch, and it's against 2.6.35-rc4.
Please check it.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui<crosslonelyover@xxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ext2/xattr.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext2/xattr.c b/fs/ext2/xattr.c
index 7c39157..0b94d61 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/xattr.c
@@ -161,6 +161,13 @@ ext2_xattr_get(struct inode *inode, int name_index, const char *name,
if (name == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* find named attribute */
+ name_len = strlen(name);
+ error = -ERANGE;
+ if (name_len> 255)
+ goto cleanup;
+
down_read(&EXT2_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
error = -ENODATA;
if (!EXT2_I(inode)->i_file_acl)
@@ -181,12 +188,7 @@ bad_block: ext2_error(inode->i_sb, "ext2_xattr_get",
error = -EIO;
goto cleanup;
}
- /* find named attribute */
- name_len = strlen(name);
- error = -ERANGE;
- if (name_len> 255)
- goto cleanup;
entry = FIRST_ENTRY(bh);
while (!IS_LAST_ENTRY(entry)) {
struct ext2_xattr_entry *next =
Hi, I noticed in ext2_xattr_set, name_len check is done
before
down_write(&EXT2_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
So I think ext2_xattr_get should do in the same way.
Please check this patch.
--
Thanks and Regards,
shenghui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
