From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754059AbbGBAUa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:20:30 -0400
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:23487 "EHLO
	ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753537AbbGBAUT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Jul 2015 20:20:19 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2DJBgBRg5RV/96zLHlbgxKBM6sFAwEBAQaaEQQCAoFLTQEBAQEBAYELhCMBAQQ6HCMQCAMYCSUPBSUDIROILsx0AQsgGIYEhS6FBgeEKwEElBCLYI4AikYmY4MpLDGCSAEBAQ
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 10:19:51 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: XFS: Fine-tuning for checks before the function call
 "xfs_qm_dqrele"?
Message-ID: <20150702001951.GX22807@dastard>
References: <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402252117150.2047@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402262129250.2221@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5479F823.60900@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20141130230904.GF16151@dastard>
 <558D1833.3080009@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20150629214355.GE7943@dastard>
 <55939BA8.1090400@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55939BA8.1090400@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 09:50:00AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > xfs_dqrele_inode() gets called on every inode in the inode cache,
> > and this change results in a cacheline in every inode being dirtied
> > even if they don't have dquots attached. Given the inode cache can
> > hold tens to hundreds of millions of inodes on large machines, we
> > don't want to dirty any cachelines we don't need to while walking
> > the inode cache and releasing dquots...
> 
> Would it make sense to annotate checks before such function calls
> as "LIKELY"?

No - it will be random as to whether the inodes have dquots attached
or not and so a static hint is always going to be wrong for
someone....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com