[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A51FE33.3070702@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:37:55 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, richard@....demon.co.uk,
damien.wyart@...e.fr, fweisbec@...il.com, Alan.Brunelle@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] writeback: support > 1 flusher thread per bdi
Jens Axboe wrote:
> +static void bdi_queue_work(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, struct bdi_work *work)
> +{
> + if (work) {
> + work->seen = bdi->wb_mask;
> + BUG_ON(!work->seen);
> + atomic_set(&work->pending, bdi->wb_cnt);
> + BUG_ON(!bdi->wb_cnt);
> +
> + /*
> + * Make sure stores are seen before it appears on the list
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&work->list, &bdi->work_list);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
> + }
Doesn't spin_lock() include an implicit memory barrier?
After &bdi->wb_lock is acquired, it is guaranteed that all
memory operations are finished.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists