| To: | Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs |
| From: | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:32:27 +1000 |
| Cc: | Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, paulus@xxxxxxxxx, shaggy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, adaplas@xxxxxxxxx, "Morton, Andrew" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200710261347.35545.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> |
| References: | <200710261209.58519.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1193369717.7018.56.camel@pasglop> <200710261347.35545.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 13:47 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > I don't think the previous code was wrong... it's not a locked section > > and we don't care about ordering previous stores. It's an > allocation, it > > should be fine. In general, bitmap allocators should be allright. > > Well if it is just allocating an arbitrary _number_ out of a bitmap > and nothing else (eg. like the pid allocator), then you don't need > barriers. Yup, that's what it does. Cheers, Ben. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs, Nick Piggin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs, Dave Kleikamp |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs, Nick Piggin |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] Re: [interesting] smattering of possible memory ordering bugs, Dave Kleikamp |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |