On Thu 21-12-17 06:25:55, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Got it, I think. How about this (sorry for the unrelated deltas here):
>
> [PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses
Yep, this looks good to me.
Honza
>
> Signed-of
On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 17:41 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 20-12-17 09:03:06, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 09:07 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > [PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses
> > >
On Wed 20-12-17 09:03:06, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 09:07 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > [PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses
> >
> > Why explicit memory barriers rather than annotating the
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 09:07 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > [PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses
>
> Why explicit memory barriers rather than annotating the operations
> with the required semantics and getting t
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 10:29 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 18-12-17 12:22:20, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > static inline bool
> > > > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
On Mon 18-12-17 12:22:20, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > static inline bool
> > > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
> > > {
> > > - atomic64_t *ivp = (atomic64_t *)&inode->i_ve
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> [PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses
Why explicit memory barriers rather than annotating the operations
with the required semantics and getting the barriers the arch
requires automatically? I suspect this shou
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:36 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:22:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > static inline bool
> > > > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct ino
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:22:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > static inline bool
> > > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
> > > {
> > > - atomic64_t *ivp = (atomic64_
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > static inline bool
> > inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
> > {
> > - atomic64_t *ivp = (atomic64_t *)&inode->i_version;
> > + u64 cur, old, new;
> >
> > - atomic6
On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
> static inline bool
> inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
> {
> - atomic64_t *ivp = (atomic64_t *)&inode->i_version;
> + u64 cur, old, new;
>
> - atomic64_inc(ivp);
> + cur = (u64)atomic64_read(&inode->i_versio
From: Jeff Layton
Since i_version is mostly treated as an opaque value, we can exploit that
fact to avoid incrementing it when no one is watching. With that change,
we can avoid incrementing the counter on writes, unless someone has
queried for it since it was last incremented. If the a/c/mtime d
12 matches
Mail list logo
