From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57310 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751236AbcFYWy2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:54:28 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:54:24 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net>
Subject: Re: Q. hlist_bl_add_head_rcu() in d_alloc_parallel()
Message-ID: <20160625225423.GV14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <13136.1466196630@jrobl>
 <20160617221614.GE14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <2123.1466313884@jrobl>
 <20160619165557.GH14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <28627.1466397254@jrobl>
 <20160620053530.GI14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20287.1466644756@jrobl>
 <20160623025809.GT14480@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFzwaiLbT8LrQTnktGdoizc9uuRbfe4cvdykXO_K8Kj2aQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzwaiLbT8LrQTnktGdoizc9uuRbfe4cvdykXO_K8Kj2aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:57:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> The non-RCU case basically never shows up in profiles (it used to,
> with symlinks, but you fixed that case), and if it ever does I suspect
> that the fix will be to make sure we don't fall out of rcu.
> 
> So don't worry too much about __d_lookup() being a hot case, I don't
> think it is.
> 
> (Of course, if you have a load that shows me wrong, let's look at it
> by all means. Maybe the loads I have used have been bad)

BTW, speaking of that area - is there any reason why dentry_cmp()
isn't simply
	return dentry_string_cmp(lockless_dereference(dentry->d_name.name),
				 ct, tcount);
other than "it predates lockless_dereference()"?

	The only difference is s/ACCESS_ONCE/READ_ONCE/, AFAICS -
lockless_dereference() uses the latter these days.  And that shouldn't
be a problem; as the matter of fact, *all* remaining ACCESS_ONCE in
fs/dcache.c look like they should become READ_ONCE.  Objections?

Al, digging through the barrier-related issues with dentries and peeling the
paint off the walls in process...