On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:06:19PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 16:32 -0500, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > So maybe we actually need
> >
> > static bool svc_xprt_has_something_to_do(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
> > {
> > + mb();
>
> You would at best need a 'smp_rmb()'. There is nothing to gain from
> adding a write barrier here,
That's not my understanding.
What we have is basically:
1 2
---- ----
WRITE to A WRITE to B
READ from A and B READ from A and B
and we want to guarantee that at least one of those two reads will see
both of the writes.
A read barrier only orders reads with respect to the barrier, it doesn't
do anything about writes, so doesn't guarantee anything here.
--b.
> and you don't even need a read barrier in
> the non-smp case.
>
> > if (xprt->xpt_flags & ((1<<XPT_CONN)|(1<<XPT_CLOSE)))
> > return true;
> > if (xprt->xpt_flags & ((1<<XPT_DATA)|(1<<XPT_DEFERRED))) {
> >
> > Then whichever memory barrier executes second guarantees that the
> > following check sees the result of both the XPT_DATA and xpt_nr_rqsts
> > changes. I think....
>
>
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
