[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Unnecessary barrier in sync_page()?
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:29:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:
> >
> > however the smp_mb() isn't needed in sync_page, simply because it's
> > perfectly ok if we start running sync_page before reading pagelocked.
> > All we care about is to run sync_page _before_ io_schedule() and that we
> > read PageLocked _after_ prepare_to_wait_exclusive.
> >
> > So the locking in between PageLocked and sync_page is _absolutely_
> > worthless and the smp_mb() can go away.
> IIRC, Chris added that barrier (and several similar) for the reads in
> page_mapping().

how does it help to know the page is not locked before executing
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: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.068 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site