[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv5 04/16] VFS: add memory barrier to sb_mark_clean and sb_mark_dirty
On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 17:50 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <>
> The proper way for file-systems to synchronize the superblock
> should be as follows:
> 1. when modifying the SB, first modify it, then mark it as dirty;
> 2. when synchronizing the SB, first mark as clean, then start
> synchronizing.
> And to make ensure the order, we need memory barriers in 'sb_mark_clean()'
> and 'sb_mark_dirty()'.

I believe this stuff is a separate story, and should be handled
separately. I'll keep this separately from the 'sync_supers()' wakes up

I actually now cannot prove myself whether these smp_mb()'s I added in
this patch make sense or not, and whether the races in FSes I was trying
to address can be addressed without spinlocks. Really dunno - but I will
keep trying to get better understanding. Reading
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and some McKenny's docs only did not
help so far :-)

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

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: 2010-06-09 18:41    [W:0.126 / U:1.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site