Filesystems appear to be using ->dirty_inode, expecting that the dirtying
operating is done and visible to all CPUs (eg. setting private inode dirty
bits, without any barriers themselves). So release the dirty "critical
section" with a barrier before calling ->dirty_inode.
Cost is not significantly changed, because we're just moving the barrier.
Those filesystems that do use ->dirty_inode should have to care slightly
less about barriers, which is a good thing.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Index: linux-2.6/fs/fs-writeback.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-19 16:47:00.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-19 16:49:39.000000000 +1100
@@ -934,6 +934,15 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *in
bool wakeup_bdi = false;
/*
+ * Make sure that changes are seen by all cpus before we test i_state
+ * or mark anything as being dirty. Ie. all dirty state should be
+ * written to the inode and visible. Like an "unlock" operation, the
+ * mark_inode_dirty call must "release" our ordering window that is
+ * opened when we started modifying the inode.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+
+ /*
* Don't do this for I_DIRTY_PAGES - that doesn't actually
* dirty the inode itself
*/
@@ -942,12 +951,6 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *in
sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode);
}
- /*
- * make sure that changes are seen by all cpus before we test i_state
- * -- mikulas
- */
- smp_mb();
-
/* avoid the locking if we can */
if ((inode->i_state & flags) == flags)
return;
--
