[PATCH 2/2] xfs: another memory barrier before wake_up_bit()

[Alex Elder]

On 02/04/2013 05:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:13:23AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
>> In xfs_inode_item_unpin() there is a call to wake_up_bit() following
>> an independent test for whether waiters should be awakened.  This
>> requires a memory barrier in order to guarantee correct operation
>> (see the comment above wake_up_bit()).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder at inktank.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c |    6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
>> index d041d47..a7cacf7 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
>> @@ -474,8 +474,10 @@ xfs_inode_item_unpin(
>>
>>  	trace_xfs_inode_unpin(ip, _RET_IP_);
>>  	ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) > 0);
>> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&ip->i_pincount))
>> -		wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
>> +	if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&ip->i_pincount))
>> +		return;
>> +	smp_mb();
>> +	wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
> 
> I'm not sure this a barrier is actually needed here.  The "wake up"
> bit is never stored or cleared anywhere in this case, it is used
> only to define a wait channel and directed wake up. Hence the "need
> a barrier so all CPUs see the cleared bit" case doesn't arise here.
> We use an atomic variable instead, and that makes it safe.
> 
> If you read Documentation/atomic_ops.txt, you'll find that atomic
> modification operations are required to have explicit barrier
> semantics. i.e. that atomic_dec_and_test() must behave like it has
> both a smp_mb() before and after the atomic operation. i.e:
> 
> 	Unlike the above routines, it is required that explicit memory
> 	barriers are performed before and after the operation.  It must be
> 	done such that all memory operations before and after the atomic
> 	operation calls are strongly ordered with respect to the atomic
> 	operation itself.
> 
> So, the smp_mb() that is added here is redundant - the
> atomic_dec_and_test() call already has the necesary memory barriers
> that wake_up_bit() requires.

I hadn't looked at that in as much detail, but now that you point it
out I concur.

I retract this patch.

Thanks.

					-Alex

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
>