* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > Now you're forcing the slow-path on unlock. Maybe it was intentional,
> > maybe it wasn't. Did you perhaps mean
> >
> > if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->count, 1, 0) == 1) {
> >
> > here? I thought we agreed it was safe, if only because it should be
> > equivalent to just having done "mutex_trylock()" instead of a "real"
> > lock sequence.
>
> Yes, that was an 'accident' from -v8, yes we did think the cmpxchg was
> good, however I did get some spurious lockups on -v7, and I only noticed
> the thing after I'd done most of the testing, so I decided to let it be
> for now.
>
> Let me put the cmpxchg back in and see if this is all still good (only
> 3*2*2 configs to test :-).
i saw sporadic lockups with -v7 too, so if you send a -v10 with Linus's
sequence for the unlock it takes about an hour of testing to check whether
it still occurs.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
