xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: make xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag cheaper for the co

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: make xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag cheaper for the common case
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:40:06 +0200
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160826160209.GB17728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1471816273-28940-1-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx> <1471816273-28940-4-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx> <20160825123808.GC25041@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160826142616.GA21535@xxxxxx> <20160826160209.GB17728@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:02:09PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > I don't think taking it should be too bad, but given the ops ordering
> > it also seems entirely pointless to even take it.
> > 
> 
> Then why are we taking it? I assumed it at least served as a memory
> barrier...

I meant to take it for that early check, not in general.

I guess this is another hint we should try to look into using proper
atomic bitops here..

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>