From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: avoid taking the ilock unnessecarily in xfs_qm_dqattach
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:13:30 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120326221330.GP5091@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120326211603.074328642@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:14:22PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Check if we actually need to attach a dquot before taking the ilock in
> xfs_qm_dqattach. This avoid superflous lock roundtrips for the common cases
> of quota support compiled in but not activated on a filesystem and an
> inode that already has the dquots attached.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Looks good. One minor thing:
> +static inline bool
> +xfs_qm_need_dqattach(
> + struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> +
> + if (!XFS_IS_QUOTA_RUNNING(mp))
> + return false;
> + if (!XFS_IS_QUOTA_ON(mp))
> + return false;
> + if (!XFS_NOT_DQATTACHED(mp, ip))
> + return false;
> + if (ip->i_ino == mp->m_sb.sb_uquotino ||
> + ip->i_ino == mp->m_sb.sb_gquotino)
> + return false;
> + return true;
> +}
That's probably a little large for an inline function. Let the
compiler decide whether to inline it or not. In most cases, it will
inline it because it is a static function....
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-26 22:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-26 21:14 [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: avoid taking the ilock unnessecarily in xfs_qm_dqattach Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 22:13 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 22:15 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_setattr_size Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 22:17 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 1:15 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-27 5:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 6:11 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: use shared ilock mode for direct IO writes by default Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 1:39 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-27 6:08 ` [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-03-27 14:34 [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times V2 Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: avoid taking the ilock unnessecarily in xfs_qm_dqattach Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:24 ` Mark Tinguely
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=20120326221330.GP5091@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox