[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277369062.1875.928.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:44:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: npiggin@...e.de
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 24/52] fs: dcache reduce d_parent locking
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:02 +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> Use RCU property of dcache to simplify locking in some places where we
> take d_parent and d_lock.
>
> Comment: don't need rcu_deref because we take the spinlock and recheck it.
But does the LOCK barrier imply a DATA DEPENDENCY barrier? (It does on
x86, and the compiler barrier implied by spin_lock() suffices to replace
ACCESS_ONCE()).
--
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