Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1467483 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] staging/lustre: avoid zero buf for the first time

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] staging/lustre: avoid zero buf for the first time Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> - 2016-08-22 11:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] staging/lustre: avoid zero buf for the first time Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-08-22 12:10 +0200

#1467483 — [PATCH] staging/lustre: avoid zero buf for the first time

We only need to zero it when repeating in order to
avoid old garbage. Let's improve it by moving this
before we repeat the calculation to save some cpu
cycle.

Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>
---

 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c
index 1784ca0..923061f 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c
@@ -248,8 +248,6 @@ repeat:
 		CDEBUG(D_OTHER, "index: %d last_index %d\n",
 		       index, last_index);
 
-		/* get the buf with our target record; avoid old garbage */
-		memset(buf, 0, LLOG_CHUNK_SIZE);
 		last_offset = cur_offset;
 		rc = llog_next_block(lpi->lpi_env, loghandle, &saved_index,
 				     index, &cur_offset, buf, LLOG_CHUNK_SIZE);
@@ -275,8 +273,11 @@ repeat:
 			if (rec->lrh_index == 0) {
 				/* probably another rec just got added? */
 				rc = 0;
-				if (index <= loghandle->lgh_last_idx)
+				if (index <= loghandle->lgh_last_idx) {
+					/* avoid old garbage */
+					memset(buf, 0, LLOG_CHUNK_SIZE);
 					goto repeat;
+				}
 				goto out; /* no more records */
 			}
 			if (rec->lrh_len == 0 ||
-- 
2.3.7

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1467522

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> We only need to zero it when repeating in order to
> avoid old garbage. Let's improve it by moving this
> before we repeat the calculation to save some cpu
> cycle.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>

Have you noticed a change with this in a benchmark?

If not, is it really worth it?

I need an ack from the lustre developers before taking patches like
this...

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web