On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 05:18:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > and then suddenly it looks like we have a common exit sequence from > that dentry_kill() function, no? > > (The earlier "unlock_on_failure" exit case is altogether a different case). > > I dunno. Maybe not a big deal, but one reason I prefer doing that > "free" flag is because I really tend to prefer the simple case of > lock-unlock pairing cleanly at the same level. NOT the pattern where > you have one lock at one indentation level, paired with multiple > unlocks for all the different cases.
Yeah, but... I have such variant, but the best I could get still generated the code that wasn't particulary nice. Part might be gcc code generation sucking for bool, part - extra register pressure... It has slightly lower i-cache footprint, though, so it might be worth doing. Hell knows; that's a fairly hot codepath, so let's do it that way - I've just pushed an alternative branch with bool can_free variant; branches in question: vfs.git#for-linus and vfs.git#dentry_kill-2. Help with profiling is needed; the loads to watch are the ones where dentry_kill() + dentry_free() are sufficiently high in profiles for the differences to matter. Any takers? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
