On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 04:26:16PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 08:38:09AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > I'm guessing the lockless check is intentional, but is that really > > necessary? E.g., it doesn't seem like using ->i_flags_lock > > unconditionally should affect performance in the way the AG lock or > > radix tree work does, particularly since we're already holding > > IOLOCK_EXCL in the current implementation. I could be wrong, but FWIW, > > we do already have xfs_iflags_test_and_set() sitting around as well... > > I don't think taking it should be too bad, but given the ops ordering > it also seems entirely pointless to even take it. > Then why are we taking it? I assumed it at least served as a memory barrier... Brian > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
