Re: [PATCH 19/19] mm: filemap: Avoid unnecessary barries and waitqueue lookups in unlock_page fastpath

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

The subsequent discussion was "off-topic", and it seems that the patch
itself needs a bit more discussion,

On 05/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:53:13PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:45:50AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >  void unlock_page(struct page *page)
> > >  {
> > > +	wait_queue_head_t *wqh = clear_page_waiters(page);
> > > +
> > >  	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(page), page);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * No additional barrier needed due to clear_bit_unlock barriering all updates
> > > +	 * before waking waiters
> > > +	 */
> > >  	clear_bit_unlock(PG_locked, &page->flags);
> > > -	smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> > > -	wake_up_page(page, PG_locked);
> >
> > This is wrong.

Yes,

> > The smp_mb__after_clear_bit() is still required to ensure
> > that the cleared bit is visible before the wakeup on all architectures.

But note that "the cleared bit is visible before the wakeup" is confusing.
I mean, we do not need mb() before __wake_up(). We need it only because
__wake_up_bit() checks waitqueue_active().


And at least

	fs/cachefiles/namei.c:cachefiles_delete_object()
	fs/block_dev.c:blkdev_get()
	kernel/signal.c:task_clear_jobctl_trapping()
	security/keys/gc.c:key_garbage_collector()

look obviously wrong.

I would be happy to send the fix, but do I need to split it per-file?
Given that it is trivial, perhaps I can send a single patch?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>