Re: [git pull] more vfs bits

[David Howells]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So the ACCESS_ONCE() thing is more special than just "done under RCU".
> It's more like "really special case done without any of the normal
> locking _or_ any of the normal RCU checks".
> 
> That said, the overhead of using ACCESS_ONCE() is basically nil, so
> it's not like we couldn't just start doing more of them, and make it
> be more of a "any time we're under RCU" kind of thing.

Some functions access ->d_inode more than once.  Wouldn't that potentially
increase the number of load instructions?  Admittedly, calls to
dentry->d_inode could be replaced with inode = dentry->d_inode, then use
inode.

> Yeah, I think "d_backing_store_inode()" would probably be more along
> the lines, but that's a mouthful. Maybe shortened to
> "d_backing_inode()"?

Sounds more reasonable than d_opened_inode().  d_actual_inode() might also
work.  d_lower_inode() might work too.

David
--
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/