Commit 2e32ef87 authored by Nikolay Borisov's avatar Nikolay Borisov Committed by David Sterba

btrfs: Relax memory barrier in btrfs_tree_unlock

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 (such as x86 or s390) unconditionally executing
a heavyweight smp_mb instruction causes a severe hit to performance
while bringin no improvements in terms of correctness.

The better thing is to use the appropriate smp_mb__after_atomic routine
which will do the correct thing (invoke a full smp_mb or in the case
of ordered atomics insert a compiler barrier). Put another way,
an RMW atomic op + smp_load__after_atomic equals, in terms of
semantics, to a full smp_mb. This ensures that none of the problems
described in the accompanying comment of waitqueue_active occur.
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: default avatarNikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
parent 7c829b72
...@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ void btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb) ...@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ void btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
/* /*
* Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters. * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters.
*/ */
smp_mb(); smp_mb__after_atomic();
if (waitqueue_active(&eb->write_lock_wq)) if (waitqueue_active(&eb->write_lock_wq))
wake_up(&eb->write_lock_wq); wake_up(&eb->write_lock_wq);
} else { } else {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment