[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectFix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
Currently unlock_buffer() contains a smb_mb__after_clear_bit() which is 
weird because bit_spin_unlock() uses smb_mb__before_clear_bit():

From include/linux/bit_spinlock.h:

static inline void bit_spin_unlock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
clear_bit(bitnum, addr);

For most architectures there is no difference because both
smp_mb__after_clear_bit() and smp_mb__before_clear_bit() are both
memory barriers and clear_buffer_locked() is an atomic operation.
However, they differ under IA64.

Note that this potential race has never been seen under IA64. It was
discovered by inspection by Zoltan Menyhart <>.

Regardless if this is a true race or not, I think the unlock sequence
needs to be the same for bit locks and unlock_buffer(). Maybe
unlock_buffer and lock_buffer better use bit spinlock operations?

Change unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_spin_unlock.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <>

Index: linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/buffer.c 2006-03-27 14:09:54.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6/fs/buffer.c 2006-03-27 19:40:32.000000000 -0800
@@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__lock_buffer);

void fastcall unlock_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
+ smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
wake_up_bit(&bh->b_state, BH_Lock);

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-28 06:02    [W:0.101 / U:4.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site