Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220811152446.281723-1-idryomov@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wifgq59uru6xDB=nY-1p6aQ-1YB8nVhW7T-N2ctK3m1gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOi1vP9BSi-65of-8D0BA1_DC0eVD_TQcWkhrGJwaXw_skhHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5d0b0367a5e28ec5b1f3b995c7792ff9a5cbcbd4.camel@kernel.org>
 <YvVzHQ5DVaPAvw26@ZenIV> <72a93a2c8910c3615bba7c093c66c18b1a6a2696.camel@kernel.org>
 <YvV2zfT0XbgwHGe/@ZenIV>
In-Reply-To: <YvV2zfT0XbgwHGe/@ZenIV>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:52:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgYnAPiGsh7H4BS_E1aMM46PdSGg8YqFhi2SpGw+Ac_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 2:38 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Exporting the functionality?  Sure, no problem.  Uninlining that one...
> I suspect that it's OK, but I'd like to see profiling data; it's not
> as if it would be hard to return to having it inlined, obviously.

The only case where I think it might matter is in __d_lookup(), and
it's probably not measurable.

Yes, __d_lookup() does matter, but it only matters once you've fallen
out of RCU mode, and at that point the cost of the function call is
likely in the noise.

I don't particularly like how it's inside that dentry hash chain loop,
but realistically by then we've already done a function call for the
dentry lock spinlock, so that loop already has to deal with it.

Again, __d_lookup_rcu() is the place where adding a function call
would matter more, because that one really does show up on profiles
regularly.

And it so carefully tries to avoid function calls (but the
DCACHE_OP_COMPARE case causes problems: at one time a few years ago I
actually wanted to move the DCACHE_OP_COMPARE *out* of the loop
entirely, because it's loop invariant and having that unlikely cause
inside the loop still causes bad things for register allocation).

So I think the uninlining is fine. If I had been really unhappy about
it I would have undone the pull.

It was more the "I was told there would be cake, but there was no
cake" that annoyed me.

            Linus