From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] btrfs: set blocking_writers directly, no increment or decrement
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:56:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56aee34d4d33bde65a9bea6e6d51fc272bee6bbf.1572432768.git.dsterba@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1572432768.git.dsterba@suse.com>
The increment and decrement was inherited from previous version that
used atomics, switched in commit 06297d8cefca ("btrfs: switch
extent_buffer blocking_writers from atomic to int"). The only possible
values are 0 and 1 so we can set them directly.
The generated assembly (gcc 9.x) did the direct value assignment in
btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write (asm diff after change in 06297d8cefca):
5d: test %eax,%eax
5f: je 62 <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x22>
61: retq
- 62: lock incl 0x44(%rdi)
- 66: add $0x50,%rdi
- 6a: jmpq 6f <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x2f>
+ 62: movl $0x1,0x44(%rdi)
+ 69: add $0x50,%rdi
+ 6d: jmpq 72 <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x32>
The part in btrfs_tree_unlock did a decrement because
BUG_ON(blockers > 1) is probably not a strong hint for the compiler, but
otherwise the output looks safe:
- lock decl 0x44(%rdi)
+ sub $0x1,%eax
+ mov %eax,0x44(%rdi)
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/locking.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.c b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
index c84c650e56c7..00edf91c3d1c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/locking.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ void btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write(struct extent_buffer *eb)
if (eb->blocking_writers == 0) {
btrfs_assert_spinning_writers_put(eb);
btrfs_assert_tree_locked(eb);
- eb->blocking_writers++;
+ eb->blocking_writers = 1;
write_unlock(&eb->lock);
}
}
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ void btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
if (blockers) {
btrfs_assert_no_spinning_writers(eb);
- eb->blocking_writers--;
+ eb->blocking_writers = 0;
/*
* We need to order modifying blocking_writers above with
* actually waking up the sleepers to ensure they see the
--
2.23.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-30 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-30 10:56 [PATCH v2 0/5] Extent buffer locking and documentation David Sterba
2019-10-30 10:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] btrfs: merge blocking_writers branches in btrfs_tree_read_lock David Sterba
2019-10-31 10:22 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-10-30 10:56 ` David Sterba [this message]
2019-10-30 10:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] btrfs: access eb::blocking_writers according to ACCESS_ONCE policies David Sterba
2019-10-30 10:57 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] btrfs: document extent buffer locking David Sterba
2019-10-30 10:57 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] btrfs: locking: add lock assertions David Sterba
2019-11-05 10:31 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56aee34d4d33bde65a9bea6e6d51fc272bee6bbf.1572432768.git.dsterba@suse.com \
--to=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).