From: Jean-Louis Biasini <jl.biasini@laposte.net>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: introduce is_dot_dotdot helper for cleanup
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:06:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12554a8e-2899-f03f-ec3d-d4cf35c4dd71@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <357ad021-a58c-ad46-42bd-d5012126276f@loongson.cn>
Please UNSUBSCRIBE ME from this list of tell how to!!!
Le 03/12/2019 à 03:07, Tiezhu Yang a écrit :
> On 12/03/2019 04:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 06:10:13PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>>> There exists many similar and duplicate codes to check "." and "..",
>>> so introduce is_dot_dotdot helper to make the code more clean.
>> The idea is good. The implementation is, I'm afraid, badly chosen.
>> Did you benchmark this change at all? In general, you should prefer the
>> core kernel implementation to that of some less-interesting filesystems.
>> I measured the performance with the attached test program on my laptop
>> (Core-i7 Kaby Lake):
>>
>> qstr . time_1 0.020531 time_2 0.005786
>> qstr .. time_1 0.017892 time_2 0.008798
>> qstr a time_1 0.017633 time_2 0.003634
>> qstr matthew time_1 0.011820 time_2 0.003605
>> qstr .a time_1 0.017909 time_2 0.008710
>> qstr , time_1 0.017631 time_2 0.003619
>>
>> The results are quite stable:
>>
>> qstr . time_1 0.021137 time_2 0.005780
>> qstr .. time_1 0.017964 time_2 0.008675
>> qstr a time_1 0.017899 time_2 0.003654
>> qstr matthew time_1 0.011821 time_2 0.003620
>> qstr .a time_1 0.017889 time_2 0.008662
>> qstr , time_1 0.017764 time_2 0.003613
>>
>> Feel free to suggest some different strings we could use for testing.
>> These seemed like interesting strings to test with. It's always
>> possible
>> I've messed up something with this benchmark that causes it to not
>> accurately represent the performance of each algorithm, so please check
>> that too.
>
> [Sorry to resend this email because the mail list server
> was denied due to it is not plain text.]
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I measured the
> performance with the test program, the following
> implementation is better for various of test cases:
>
> bool is_dot_dotdot(const struct qstr *str)
> {
> if (unlikely(str->name[0] == '.')) {
> if (str->len < 2 || (str->len == 2 && str->name[1] ==
> '.'))
> return true;
> }
>
> return false;
> }
>
> I will send a v2 patch used with this implementation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tiezhu Yang
>
>>
>>> +bool is_dot_dotdot(const struct qstr *str)
>>> +{
>>> + if (str->len == 1 && str->name[0] == '.')
>>> + return true;
>>> +
>>> + if (str->len == 2 && str->name[0] == '.' && str->name[1] == '.')
>>> + return true;
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(is_dot_dotdot);
>>> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
>>> index 2dda552..7730a3b 100644
>>> --- a/fs/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/namei.c
>>> @@ -2458,10 +2458,8 @@ static int lookup_one_len_common(const char
>>> *name, struct dentry *base,
>>> if (!len)
>>> return -EACCES;
>>> - if (unlikely(name[0] == '.')) {
>>> - if (len < 2 || (len == 2 && name[1] == '.'))
>>> - return -EACCES;
>>> - }
>>> + if (unlikely(is_dot_dotdot(this)))
>>> + return -EACCES;
>>> while (len--) {
>>> unsigned int c = *(const unsigned char *)name++;
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-04 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-02 10:10 [PATCH] fs: introduce is_dot_dotdot helper for cleanup Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-02 20:03 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-12-03 2:07 ` Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-03 2:39 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-12-03 8:33 ` Tiezhu Yang
2019-12-03 2:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-12-04 13:06 ` Jean-Louis Biasini [this message]
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=12554a8e-2899-f03f-ec3d-d4cf35c4dd71@laposte.net \
--to=jl.biasini@laposte.net \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/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).