Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans -- vm bugfixes

[Hugh Dickins]

On Thu, 3 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>@@ -568,6 +570,11 @@ __lock_page (diff -p would tell us!)
> > > {
> > >  DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
> > >
> > >+	set_bit(PG_waiters, &page->flags);
> > >+	if (unlikely(!TestSetPageLocked(page))) {
> > 
> > What happens if another cpu is coming through __lock_page at the
> > same time, did its set_bit, now finds PageLocked, and so proceeds
> > to the __wait_on_bit_lock?  But this cpu now clears PG_waiters,
> > so this task's unlock_page won't wake the other?
> 
> You're right, we can't clear the bit here. Doubt it mattered much anyway?

Ah yes, that's a good easy answer.  In fact, just remove this whole
test and block (we already tried TestSetPageLocked outside just a
short while ago, so this repeat won't often save anything).

> 
> BTW. I also forgot an smp_mb__after_clear_bit() before the wake_up_page
> above... that barrier is in the slow path as well though, so it shouldn't
> matter either.

I vaguely wondered how such barriers had managed to dissolve away,
but cranking my brain up to think about barriers takes far too long.

> > >+		clear_bit(PG_waiters, &page->flags);
> > >+		return;
> > >+	}
> > >  __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait, sync_page,
> > >        TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> >> }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/