On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:49:50PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > So now it's time to start asking questions. Just jumping in at a place I felt I > knew pretty well back in 2.2.13, I'm now looking at the 2.4.0 getblk, and I see > it's changed somewhat. Finding and removing a block from the free list is now > bracketed by a spinlock pair. First question: why do we use atomic_set to set > the initial buffer use count if this is already protected by a spinlock? the usual answer to this type of question is that there is another place which accesses the buffer use count without holding the spinlock. I haven't audited this particular piece of code and I'm not familiar with this area, but this may help you find the solution. (the other answer is that this is a bug left over from a time when there was no spinlock :-) -- Revolutions do not require corporate support.
- Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Tigran Aivazian
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Matthew Wilcox
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Steve Dodd
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in ... Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page ... Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+p... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in ... Kurt Garloff
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Daniel Phillips
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in ... Chris Mason