From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs: mark_inode_dirty barrier fix
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:16:01 -0500
Message-ID: <20101122131601.GA25321@infradead.org>
References: <20101122130507.GC12716@amd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:46766 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750801Ab0KVNQF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:16:05 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101122130507.GC12716@amd>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:05:07AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> fs: mark_inode_dirty barrier fix
> 
> Filesystems appear to be using ->dirty_inode, expecting that the dirtying
> operating is done and visible to all CPUs (eg. setting private inode dirty
> bits, without any barriers themselves). So release the dirty "critical
> section" with a barrier before calling ->dirty_inode.
> 
> Cost is not significantly changed, because we're just moving the barrier.
> Those filesystems that do use ->dirty_inode should have to care slightly
> less about barriers, which is a good thing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>

Looks good to me.  I can't see any reason to have a barrier after
->dirty_inode.