From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327697CC9 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 09:26:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB082304048 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 07:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id siDBxQrAETxEnXZT (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:26:16 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: make xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag cheaper for the common case Message-ID: <20160826142616.GA21535@lst.de> References: <1471816273-28940-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1471816273-28940-4-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160825123808.GC25041@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160825123808.GC25041@bfoster.bfoster> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs