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;
Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 23:04:26 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 5.20-rc1
Message-ID: <YvV86p5DjBLjjXHo@ZenIV>
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>
 <CAHk-=wgYnAPiGsh7H4BS_E1aMM46PdSGg8YqFhi2SpGw+Ac_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgYnAPiGsh7H4BS_E1aMM46PdSGg8YqFhi2SpGw+Ac_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 02:52:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, I wonder if we should do
	if (READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent) != parent)
		continue;
before grabbing ->d_lock (and repeat the check after grabbing it,
of course).  It's OK from correctness POV - we are OK with false
negatives from __d_lookup() if concurrent rename happens.  And
it just might be a sufficiently large performance win...