From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
jack@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, john@johnmccutchan.com,
rlove@rlove.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv2][PATCH 1/7] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:28:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558C2C29.7040106@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1435193823.19444.36.camel@redhat.com>
On 06/24/2015 05:57 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 17:16 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> + if (!to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks.first &&
>> + (!mnt || !mnt->mnt_fsnotify_marks.first))
>> + return 0;
>
> two useless peeps from the old peanut gallery of long lost....
>
> 1) should you actually move this check up before the IN_MODIFY check?
> This seems like it would be by far the most common case, and you'd save
> yourself a bunch of useless conditionals/bit operations.
Doing that actually makes fsnotify() 82 bytes smaller for me. I think
you're also right that the new check is a much more general condition
than the existing one. I'll move it up when I post again.
> 2) do you want to use hlist_empty(&to_tell->i_fsnotify_marks) instead,
> for readability (and they are static inline, so compiled code is the
> same)
Yeah I guess that makes sense. The only thing that the current code is
nice for is that it makes it obvious that the .first checks match with
the srcu_dereference()s done below.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-25 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-25 0:16 [RFCv2][PATCH 1/7] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files Dave Hansen
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 2/7] fs: use RCU for free_super() vs. __sb_start_write() Dave Hansen
2015-06-26 12:59 ` Jan Kara
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 3/7] fs: fsnotify: replace memory barrier in __sb_end_write() with RCU Dave Hansen
2015-06-26 13:07 ` Jan Kara
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 5/7] fsnotify: use fsnotify_head for vfsmount data Dave Hansen
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 4/7] fsnotify: encapsulate embedded fsnotify data in a single spot Dave Hansen
2015-06-26 13:19 ` Jan Kara
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 7/7] fsnotify: track when ignored mask clearing is needed Dave Hansen
2015-06-26 13:26 ` Jan Kara
2015-06-25 0:16 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 6/7] fsnotify: change fsnotify_recalc_mask() conventions Dave Hansen
2015-06-25 0:57 ` [RFCv2][PATCH 1/7] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files Eric Paris
2015-06-25 16:28 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
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=558C2C29.7040106@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john@johnmccutchan.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rlove@rlove.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.