[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1194288007.20278.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:40:07 -0800
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]Ext4: Use get_cpu()/put_cpu() in preemptible
context
On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 13:01 +0800, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Nov 02, 2007 17:35 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6.24-rc1/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2007-11-02 17:22:18.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2007-11-02 17:23:02.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -4006,7 +4006,8 @@ static void ext4_mb_group_or_file(struct
> > return;
> >
> > BUG_ON(ac->ac_lg != NULL);
> > - ac->ac_lg = &sbi->s_locality_groups[smp_processor_id()];
> > + ac->ac_lg = &sbi->s_locality_groups[get_cpu()];
> > + put_cpu();
> >
> > /* we're going to use group allocation */
> > ac->ac_flags |= EXT4_MB_HINT_GROUP_ALLOC;
>
> Shouldn't the put_cpu() be after ac->ac_lg is no longer being used?
> I guess there would otherwise be a danger of other processes using
> the same s_locality_groups[] struct?
>>From the code, the concurrent use of the same s_locality_groups is being
protected by the ac_lg->lg_sem. The put_cpu() instruction is before the
lock is taken.
Mingming
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists