[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140514161152.GA2615@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 18:11:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] mm: filemap: Avoid unnecessary barries and
waitqueue lookups in unlock_page fastpath
The subsequent discussion was "off-topic", and it seems that the patch
itself needs a bit more discussion,
On 05/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:53:13PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:45:50AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > void unlock_page(struct page *page)
> > > {
> > > + wait_queue_head_t *wqh = clear_page_waiters(page);
> > > +
> > > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), page);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * No additional barrier needed due to clear_bit_unlock barriering all updates
> > > + * before waking waiters
> > > + */
> > > clear_bit_unlock(PG_locked, &page->flags);
> > > - smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> > > - wake_up_page(page, PG_locked);
> >
> > This is wrong.
Yes,
> > The smp_mb__after_clear_bit() is still required to ensure
> > that the cleared bit is visible before the wakeup on all architectures.
But note that "the cleared bit is visible before the wakeup" is confusing.
I mean, we do not need mb() before __wake_up(). We need it only because
__wake_up_bit() checks waitqueue_active().
And at least
fs/cachefiles/namei.c:cachefiles_delete_object()
fs/block_dev.c:blkdev_get()
kernel/signal.c:task_clear_jobctl_trapping()
security/keys/gc.c:key_garbage_collector()
look obviously wrong.
I would be happy to send the fix, but do I need to split it per-file?
Given that it is trivial, perhaps I can send a single patch?
Oleg.
--
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