[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:50:16 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2/2] Optimize touch_time too
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:24:47PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Do a similar optimization as earlier for touch_atime. Getting
> the lock in mnt_get_write is relatively costly, so try all
> avenues to avoid it first.
>
> This patch is careful to still only update inode fields
> inside the lock region.
>
> This didn't show up in benchmarks, but it's easy enough
> to do.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>
> ---
> fs/inode.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.31-rc1-ak/fs/inode.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.31-rc1-ak.orig/fs/inode.c
> +++ linux-2.6.31-rc1-ak/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1431,34 +1431,37 @@ void file_update_time(struct file *file)
> {
> struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> struct timespec now;
> - int sync_it = 0;
> - int err;
> + enum { S_MTIME = 1, S_CTIME = 2, S_VERSION = 4 } sync_it = 0;
Looks good, and makes sense to keep thise in sync with
file_update_atime.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists