Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: barrier before waitqueue_active

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Liu Bo <liub.liubo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 04:25 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> We need an smb_mb() before waitqueue_active to avoid missing wakeups.
>> Before Mitch was hitting a deadlock between the ordered flushers and the
>> transaction commit because the ordered flushers were waiting for more refs
>> and were never woken up, so those smp_mb()'s are the most important.
>> Everything else I added for correctness sake and to avoid getting bitten by
>> this again somewhere else.  Thanks,
>>
>
> Hi Josef,
>
> I'll appreciate a lot if you can add some comments for each memory
> barrier, because not everyone knows why it is used here and there. :)

Everyone who wants to know should read the memory-barriers.txt file
that's hiding in the oddly named "Documentation" folder of their
kernel tree.  :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux