Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:

> Why not to use separate bit operations for different purposes?
> 
> - e.g. "test_and_set_bit_N_acquire()" for lock acquisition
> - "test_and_set_bit()", "clear_bit()" as they are today
> - "release_N_clear_bit()"...
> 

That would force IA64 specifics onto all other architectures.

Could we simply define these smb_mb__*_clear_bit to be noops
and then make the atomic bit ops to have full barriers? That would satisfy 
Nick's objections.

Index: linux-2.6.16/include/asm-ia64/bitops.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.16.orig/include/asm-ia64/bitops.h	2006-03-19 21:53:29.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.16/include/asm-ia64/bitops.h	2006-03-28 15:45:08.000000000 -0800
@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old | bit;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smb_mb();
 }
 
 /**
@@ -65,7 +66,7 @@
 /*
  * clear_bit() has "acquire" semantics.
  */
-#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()	smp_mb()
+#define smp_mb__before_clear_bit()	do { } while (0)
 #define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()	do { /* skip */; } while (0)
 
 /**
@@ -92,6 +93,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old & mask;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smp_mb();
 }
 
 /**
@@ -128,6 +130,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old ^ bit;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smp_mb();
 }
 
 /**
@@ -167,6 +170,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old | bit;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smp_mb();
 	return (old & bit) != 0;
 }
 
@@ -212,6 +216,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old & mask;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smp_mb();
 	return (old & ~mask) != 0;
 }
 
@@ -257,6 +262,7 @@
 		old = *m;
 		new = old ^ bit;
 	} while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
+	smp_mb();
 	return (old & bit) != 0;
 }
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/