On 12/09/2013 02:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
After reading the locking thread that Paul McKenney started,
I wonder if I got the barriers wrong in these functions...
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING) || defined(CONFIG_COMPACTION)
> +/*
> + * Memory barriers to keep this state in sync are graciously provided by
> + * the page table locks, outside of which no page table modifications happen.
> + * The barriers below prevent the compiler from re-ordering the instructions
> + * around the memory barriers that are already present in the code.
> + */
> +static inline bool tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + barrier();
Should this be smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(); ?
> + return mm->tlb_flush_pending;
> +}
> +static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + mm->tlb_flush_pending = true;
> + barrier();
> +}
> +/* Clearing is done after a TLB flush, which also provides a barrier. */
> +static inline void clear_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + barrier();
> + mm->tlb_flush_pending = false;
> +}
And these smp_mb__before_spinlock() ?
Paul? Peter?
--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>