Message ID | 20201217161911.743222-1-axboe@kernel.dk (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | fs: Support for LOOKUP_CACHED / RESOLVE_CACHED | expand |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:19 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote: > [..] > which shows a failed nonblock lookup, then punt to worker, and then we > complete with fd == 4. This takes 65 usec in total. Re-running the same > test case again: > [..] > shows the same request completing inline, also returning fd == 4. This > takes 6 usec. I think this example needs to be part of the git history - either move it into the individual commits, or we just need to make sure it doesn't get lost as a cover letter and ends up part of the merge message. Despite having seen the patch series so many times now, I'm still just really impressed by how small and neat it is, considering the above numbers, and considering just how problematic this case was historically (ie I remember all the discussions we had about nonblocking opens back in the days). So I continue to go "this is the RightWay(tm)" just from that. Linus
On 12/17/20 11:09 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:19 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote: >> [..] >> which shows a failed nonblock lookup, then punt to worker, and then we >> complete with fd == 4. This takes 65 usec in total. Re-running the same >> test case again: >> [..] >> shows the same request completing inline, also returning fd == 4. This >> takes 6 usec. > > I think this example needs to be part of the git history - either move > it into the individual commits, or we just need to make sure it > doesn't get lost as a cover letter and ends up part of the merge > message. I agree, and I think the best approach will depend a bit on whether Al takes the core bits, and then I'm left with just the io_uring part, or if the series goes in as a whole. In any case, I'll make sure it gets in as either the merge message, or (at the least) in the io_uring enablement of it. > Despite having seen the patch series so many times now, I'm still just > really impressed by how small and neat it is, considering the above > numbers, and considering just how problematic this case was > historically (ie I remember all the discussions we had about > nonblocking opens back in the days). > > So I continue to go "this is the RightWay(tm)" just from that. Well, that's largely thanks to your and Al's feedback. I did attempt this one time earlier, and the break through just wasn't there in terms of condensing it properly. I'm very happy with it now.