On Tue, Oct 31 2006, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Jens Axboe a écrit :
> >On Tue, Oct 31 2006, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>This patch deletes two calls to smp_mb() that were done after
> >>mutex_unlock() that contains an implicit memory barrier.
> >>
> >>The first one in splice_to_pipe(), where 'do_wakeup' is set to true only
> >>if pipe->inode is set (and in this case the
> >>if (pipe->inode)
> >> mutex_unlock(&pipe->inode->i_mutex);
> >>is done too)
> >>
> >>The second one in link_pipe(), following inode_double_unlock() that
> >>contains calls to mutex_unlock() too.
> >
> >NAK on that patch, the smp_mb() follows the waitqueue_active(). If you
> >later change the code and move the locks or whatnot, you have lost that
> >connection.
> >
> >If you change the patch to insert a comment, then it may be more
> >applicable.
> >
>
> Hum... I read fs/pipe.c and see no smp_mb() there, but I suspect same
> semantics are/were used.
>
> Should we add comments on fs/pipe.c too ?
fs/pipe.c looks different:
if (do_wakeup) {
wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
...
}
The smp_mb() is not needed if you call wake_up() directly, only if
checking via waitqueue_active().
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
