From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/45] NFS: introduce writeback wait queue Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:19:36 +0800 Message-ID: <20091007091936.GC5646@localhost> References: <20091007073818.318088777@intel.com> <20091007074903.749770316@intel.com> <1254905600.26976.218.camel@twins> <20091007090722.GA5646@localhost> <1254906936.26976.227.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Theodore Tso , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , "Li, Shaohua" , Myklebust Trond , "jens.axboe@oracle.com" , Jan Kara , Nick Piggin , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:62428 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751738AbZJGJU2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 05:20:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1254906936.26976.227.camel@twins> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:15:36PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 17:07 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > wakeup implies a full memory barrier. > > > > If so, this smp_mb__after_clear_bit() line is also not necessary? > > > > void clear_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync) > > { > > //... > > clear_bit(bit, &bdi->state); > > smp_mb__after_clear_bit(); > > if (waitqueue_active(wqh)) > > wake_up(wqh); > > Depends on if the barrier is needed even when the wakeup doesn't happen > I guess ;-) I see. Thanks!