On Sat 22-06-24 11:49:04, Yu Ma wrote:
> alloc_fd() has a sanity check inside to make sure the struct file mapping to the
> allocated fd is NULL. Remove this sanity check since it can be assured by
> exisitng zero initilization and NULL set when recycling fd.
^^^ existing ^^^ initialization
Well, since this is a sanity check, it is expected it never hits. Yet
searching the web shows it has hit a few times in the past :). So would
wrapping this with unlikely() give a similar performance gain while keeping
debugability? If unlikely() does not help, I agree we can remove this since
fd_install() actually has the same check:
BUG_ON(fdt->fd[fd] != NULL);
and there we need the cacheline anyway so performance impact is minimal.
Now, this condition in alloc_fd() is nice that it does not take the kernel
down so perhaps we could change the BUG_ON to WARN() dumping similar kind
of info as alloc_fd()?
Honza
> Combined with patch 1 and 2 in series, pts/blogbench-1.1.0 read improved by
> 32%, write improved by 17% on Intel ICX 160 cores configuration with v6.10-rc4.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Ma <yu.ma@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/file.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/file.c b/fs/file.c
> index b4d25f6d4c19..1153b0b7ba3d 100644
> --- a/fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/file.c
> @@ -555,13 +555,6 @@ static int alloc_fd(unsigned start, unsigned end, unsigned flags)
> else
> __clear_close_on_exec(fd, fdt);
> error = fd;
> -#if 1
> - /* Sanity check */
> - if (rcu_access_pointer(fdt->fd[fd]) != NULL) {
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "alloc_fd: slot %d not NULL!\n", fd);
> - rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL);
> - }
> -#endif
>
> out:
> spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
