On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:09:29AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:08:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > index d22f7930eb75..dca3ddd737d4 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > @@ -3629,7 +3629,7 @@ xfs_bmap_btalloc(
> > align = xfs_get_cowextsz_hint(ap->ip);
> > else if (xfs_alloc_is_userdata(ap->datatype))
> > align = xfs_get_extsz_hint(ap->ip);
> > - if (unlikely(align)) {
> > + if (unlikely_notrace(align)) {
> > error = xfs_bmap_extsize_align(mp, &ap->got, &ap->prev,
> > align, 0, ap->eof, 0, ap->conv,
> > &ap->offset, &ap->length);
>
> The unlikely calls on align in xfs_bmap_btalloc should simply be
> removed. They aren't actually unlikely for many workloads. I have
> a patch in my queue that I can expedite based on your report.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Since it breaks the build
somewhere, can you send a oneliner patch so I can roll it into the rc6
fixes?
--D
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
