[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b0af045-25c1-9848-3c8c-de7da94d06da@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:34:30 +0800
From: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, houtao1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fscache: Add the missing smp_mb__after_atomic()
before wake_up_bit()
On 12/26/22 6:33 PM, Hou Tao wrote:
> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
>
> fscache_create_volume_work() uses wake_up_bit() to wake up the processes
> which are waiting for the completion of volume creation. According to
> comments in wake_up_bit() and waitqueue_active(), an extra smp_mb() is
> needed to guarantee the memory order between FSCACHE_VOLUME_CREATING
> flag and waitqueue_active() before invoking wake_up_bit().
>
> Considering clear_bit_unlock() before wake_up_bit() is an atomic
> operation, use smp_mb__after_atomic() instead of smp_mb() to provide
> such guarantee.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hou Tao <houtao1@...wei.com>
> ---
> fs/fscache/volume.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fscache/volume.c b/fs/fscache/volume.c
> index fc3dd3bc851d..734d17f404e7 100644
> --- a/fs/fscache/volume.c
> +++ b/fs/fscache/volume.c
> @@ -281,6 +281,11 @@ static void fscache_create_volume_work(struct work_struct *work)
> fscache_access_acquire_volume_end);
>
> clear_bit_unlock(FSCACHE_VOLUME_CREATING, &volume->flags);
> + /*
> + * Paired with barrier in wait_on_bit(). Check wake_up_bit() and
> + * waitqueue_active() for details.
> + */
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> wake_up_bit(&volume->flags, FSCACHE_VOLUME_CREATING);
> fscache_put_volume(volume, fscache_volume_put_create_work);
> }
LGTM.
Actually I'm thinking if clear_and_wake_up_bit() could be used here.
Ditto for patch 1.
--
Thanks,
Jingbo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists