[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:0.022 / U:3.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site