From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@primarydata.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: bfields@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: no need to unhash_stid before free
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:00:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <526F5CFF.2080003@primarydata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131028183214.GH31322@fieldses.org>
On 2013-10-28 20:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:01:55AM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>> idr_remove is about to be called before kmem_cache_free so unhashing it
>> is redundant
>
> This leaves only two unhash_stid callers, in release_lock_stateid and
> unhash_stid, both called just before destroying the stateid, so perhaps
> we should remove those and unhash_stid?
In my state lock elimination patchset I actually keep using unhash_stid
after refactoring non-blocking unhashing from the blocking release
so I don't think it's worth it to remove the call.
That said, we can still open code it but encapsulating the assignment
in unhash_stid() which the compiler can inline anyway seems cleaner to me.
Benny
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@primarydata.com>
>> ---
>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 7 ++-----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> index 0874998..06984e3 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> @@ -668,7 +668,6 @@ static void unhash_open_stateid(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp)
>> static void release_open_stateid(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp)
>> {
>> unhash_open_stateid(stp);
>> - unhash_stid(&stp->st_stid);
>> free_generic_stateid(stp);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -690,7 +689,6 @@ static void release_last_closed_stateid(struct nfs4_openowner *oo)
>> struct nfs4_ol_stateid *s = oo->oo_last_closed_stid;
>>
>> if (s) {
>> - unhash_stid(&s->st_stid);
>> free_generic_stateid(s);
>> oo->oo_last_closed_stid = NULL;
>> }
>> @@ -3998,10 +3996,9 @@ static void nfsd4_close_open_stateid(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *s)
>>
>> nfsd4_close_open_stateid(stp);
>>
>> - if (cstate->minorversion) {
>> - unhash_stid(&stp->st_stid);
>> + if (cstate->minorversion)
>> free_generic_stateid(stp);
>> - } else
>> + else
>> oo->oo_last_closed_stid = stp;
>>
>> if (list_empty(&oo->oo_owner.so_stateids)) {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-29 7:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-14 6:01 [PATCH] nfsd: no need to unhash_stid before free Benny Halevy
2013-10-28 18:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-10-29 7:00 ` Benny Halevy [this message]
2013-10-29 13:39 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=526F5CFF.2080003@primarydata.com \
--to=bhalevy@primarydata.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.