Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 01:39:22PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Now that d_invalidate is the only caller of check_submounts_and_drop,
>> expand check_submounts_and_drop inline in d_invalidate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/dcache.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>> include/linux/dcache.h | 1 -
>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
>> index 27585b1dd6f1..5b41205cbf33 100644
>> --- a/fs/dcache.c
>> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
>> -int check_submounts_and_drop(struct dentry *dentry)
>> +int d_invalidate(struct dentry *dentry)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If it's already been dropped, return OK.
>> + */
>> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> + if (d_unhashed(dentry)) {
>> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
>> +
>> /* Negative dentries can be dropped without further checks */
>> if (!dentry->d_inode) {
>> d_drop(dentry);
>
>
> You can optimize this by including the negative check within the above d_locked
> region and calling __d_drop() instead.
For this patch just moving the code and not changing it is the corret
thing to do because it helps with review and understanding the code.
There are two ways I could see going with optimizing the preamble.
Simply dropping the d_lock from around the d_unhashed test as a pointer
dereference should be atomic, and the test is racy against
d_materialise_unique. (We don't always hold the parent
directories inode mutex when d_invalidate is called). So the d_lock
buys us very little. Alternatively we could move the work into the
d_walk callbacks.
That kind of optimization deserves it's own patch that can be reviewed
independently.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
