On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> >
> > > void wait_and_rw_block(...)
> > > {
> > > wait_on_buffer(bh);
> > > ll_rw_block(...);
> > > }
> >
> > It would fail if other CPU submits IO with ll_rw_block after
> > wait_on_buffer but before ll_rw_block.
>
> In that case, the caller's data gets written anyway, and the caller will wait
> upon the I/O which the other CPU started. So the ll_rw_block() behaviour is
> appropriate.
You are partly right, but it suffers from smp memory ordering bug:
CPU 1
write data to buffer (but they are
in cpu-local buffer and do not go
to the bus)
tests buffer_locked in
wait_and_rw_block->wait_on_buffer,
sees unlocked
CPU 2
starts to write the buffer, but
does not see data written by CPU 1
yet
cpu flushes data to bus
calls ll_rw_block, it sees
buffer_locked, exits.
new data are lost.
There should be smp_mb(); before wait_on_buffer in wait_and_rw_block.
BTW. why don't you just patch ll_rw_block so that it waits if it sees a
locked buffer -- you get much cleaner code with only one test for locked
buffer.
Mikulas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:10 EST