Re: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:21:05PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, we can add unlocked checks on the three hot spots.
> 
> After following patch, a close(socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) pair on
> my dev machine takes ~3us instead of ~9us.
> 
> Maybe its better to split it in three patches, just let me know.

I think three patches would be a lot cleaner.

As for safety of the unlocked checks:

 - inode are either hashed when created or never, so that one looks
   fine.
 - same for the sb list.
 - the writeback list is a bit more dynamic as we move things around
   quite a bit.  But in additon to the inode_wb_list_del call from
   evict() it only ever gets remove in writeback_single_inode, which
   for a freeing inode can only be called from the callers of evict().

Btw, I wonder if you should micro-optimize things a bit further by
moving the unhashed checks from the deletion functions into the callers
and thus save a function call for each of them.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/