On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 09:13:04AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > + smp_mb__before_atomic();
>
> I am wondering whether we should be using smp_wmb() instead: this would
> provide the above guarantee and save a full barrier on powerpc/arm64.
Right, did that.
> > + set_bit(REQ_ATOM_STARTED, &r
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:51:25PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> "deaedline" is a spelling error. Has this patch been tested?
Bah.. So I ran with a previous version for a while, but then redid the
whole patch (as its mostly comments anyway) and clearly made a giant
mess of it.
I'll respin.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:09:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
> single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
> clearly specify a pairing barrier and an obtained guarantee.
>
> The comment is furth
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> /*
>* Mark us as started and clear complete. Complete might have been
>* set if requeue raced with timeout, which then marked it as
>* complete. So be sure to clear complete again when we start
>* the r
Attempt to untangle the ordering in blk-mq. The patch introducing the
single smp_mb__before_atomic() is obviously broken in that it doesn't
clearly specify a pairing barrier and an obtained guarantee.
The comment is further misleading in that it hints that the
deadline store and the COMPLETE stor
5 matches
Mail list logo
