[2.4] [PATCH] hash_page rework, take 2

Olof Johansson olof at austin.ibm.com
Fri Feb 13 09:30:23 EST 2004

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>I can't even find any other users of is_read_locked in the ppc64 code. I
>>guess it should be fixed for future reference though. :-)
>>As for the memory barrier: Since smb_mb() (sync) is "larger" than
>>smb_rmb() (lwsync), we should be fine to keep it outside the loop:
> Sure, the code is fine, I was correcting your comments :)

Thanks. I'll fix them before any push.

>>I didn't look much at it yet, but there's no isync after the loop at the
>>top of __hash_page (add one right before "Step 2"). I can supply patch,
>>but it's pretty obvious where it should go...
> I did already, it's in linus tree.

Ok, my ames tree that I checked with might have been slightly out of date.


Olof Johansson                                        Office: 4F005/905
pSeries Linux Development                             IBM Systems Group
Email: olof at austin.ibm.com                          Phone: 512-838-9858
All opinions are my own and not those of IBM

** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list