Currently unlock_buffer() contains a smb_mb__after_clear_bit() which is
weird because bit_spin_unlock() uses smb_mb__before_clear_bit():
>From include/linux/bit_spinlock.h:
static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
{
smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
clear_bit(bitnum, addr);
preempt_enable();
__release(bitlock);
}
For most architectures there is no difference because both
smp_mb__after_clear_bit() and smp_mb__before_clear_bit() are both
memory barriers and clear_buffer_locked() is an atomic operation.
However, they differ under IA64.
Note that this potential race has never been seen under IA64. It was
discovered by inspection by Zoltan Menyhart <[email protected]>.
Regardless if this is a true race or not, I think the unlock sequence
needs to be the same for bit locks and unlock_buffer(). Maybe
unlock_buffer and lock_buffer better use bit spinlock operations?
Change unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_spin_unlock.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c 2006-03-27 14:09:54.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2006-03-27 19:40:32.000000000 -0800
@@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__lock_buffer);
void fastcall unlock_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
{
+ smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
clear_buffer_locked(bh);
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
wake_up_bit(&bh->b_state, BH_Lock);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
