From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9507E7CA0 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:40:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5618F8F8064 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 8POcGzQmuYcV0nw9 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:40:06 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: make xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag cheaper for the common case Message-ID: <20160830144006.GA14504@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> <20160826142616.GA21535@lst.de> <20160826160209.GB17728@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160826160209.GB17728@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: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:02:09PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > I don't think taking it should be too bad, but given the ops ordering > > it also seems entirely pointless to even take it. > > > > Then why are we taking it? I assumed it at least served as a memory > barrier... I meant to take it for that early check, not in general. I guess this is another hint we should try to look into using proper atomic bitops here.. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs