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 <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxx>.
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 <clameter@xxxxxxx>
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);
}
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|