David Sterba 40d38f53d4 btrfs: set blocking_writers directly, no increment or decrement
The increment and decrement was inherited from previous version that
used atomics, switched in commit 06297d8cefca ("btrfs: switch
extent_buffer blocking_writers from atomic to int"). The only possible
values are 0 and 1 so we can set them directly.

The generated assembly (gcc 9.x) did the direct value assignment in
btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write (asm diff after change in 06297d8cefca):

     5d:   test   %eax,%eax
     5f:   je     62 <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x22>
     61:   retq

  -  62:   lock incl 0x44(%rdi)
  -  66:   add    $0x50,%rdi
  -  6a:   jmpq   6f <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x2f>

  +  62:   movl   $0x1,0x44(%rdi)
  +  69:   add    $0x50,%rdi
  +  6d:   jmpq   72 <btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write+0x32>

The part in btrfs_tree_unlock did a decrement because
BUG_ON(blockers > 1) is probably not a strong hint for the compiler, but
otherwise the output looks safe:

  - lock decl 0x44(%rdi)

  + sub    $0x1,%eax
  + mov    %eax,0x44(%rdi)

Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
2019-11-18 17:51:50 +01:00
..
2019-09-27 15:10:34 -07:00
2019-09-19 09:42:37 -07:00
2019-07-12 17:37:53 -07:00
\n
2019-09-21 13:53:34 -07:00
2019-09-29 19:25:39 -07:00
2019-09-21 14:26:33 -07:00
2019-09-19 09:42:37 -07:00
2019-09-19 09:42:37 -07:00
2019-07-03 17:52:09 -04:00
2019-09-27 17:00:27 -07:00
2019-09-27 17:00:27 -07:00
2019-09-19 10:21:35 -07:00
2019-10-19 06:32:32 -04:00
2019-08-30 08:11:25 -07:00
2019-09-19 09:42:37 -07:00
2019-09-18 17:35:20 -07:00
2019-07-15 21:20:52 -07:00
2019-04-08 18:21:02 -05:00
2019-08-07 21:51:47 -04:00
2019-09-18 16:59:14 -07:00
2019-10-14 15:04:01 -07:00
2019-09-27 17:00:27 -07:00
2019-09-18 16:59:14 -07:00
2019-08-01 20:51:23 +02:00
2019-09-25 17:51:41 -07:00