Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:11 AM > OK, that's fair enough and I guess you do need a barrier there. > However, should the mb__after barrier still remain? The comment > in wake_up_bit suggests yes, and there is similar code in > unlock_page. Question on unlock_page: void fastcall unlock_page(struct page *page) { smp_mb__before_clear_bit(); if (!TestClearPageLocked(page)) BUG(); smp_mb__after_clear_bit(); wake_up_page(page, PG_locked); } Assuming test_and_clear_bit() on all arch does what the API is called for with full memory fence around the atomic op, why do you need smp_mb__before_clear_bit and smp_mb__after_clear_bit? Aren't they redundant? - Ken - : 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
![]() |