On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:37:26PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> When performing an unlock on an extent buffer we'd like to order the
> decrement of extent_buffer::blocking_writers with waking up any
> waiters. In such situations it's sufficient to use smp_mb__after_atomic
> rather than the
On 24.02.2018 02:14, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:37:26PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> When performing an unlock on an extent buffer we'd like to order the
>> decrement of extent_buffer::blocking_writers with waking up any
>> waiters. In such situations it's sufficient to
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:37:26PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> When performing an unlock on an extent buffer we'd like to order the
> decrement of extent_buffer::blocking_writers with waking up any
> waiters. In such situations it's sufficient to use smp_mb__after_atomic
> rather than the
When performing an unlock on an extent buffer we'd like to order the
decrement of extent_buffer::blocking_writers with waking up any
waiters. In such situations it's sufficient to use smp_mb__after_atomic
rather than the heavy smp_mb. On architectures where atomic operations
are fully ordered