Re: blkdev_issue_discard() hangs forever if the underlying storage device is removed

[Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Lin Ming wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the atomic operations I do not think that implicit memory
> > barriers are needed here as atomic_dec_and_test() implies memory
> 
> Which implicit memory barrier you are talking about?

smp_mb() at both side of the operation as documented here in
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt

[citation]
Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and returns
information about the state (old or new) implies an SMP-conditional
general memory barrier (smp_mb()) on each side of the actual operation
(with the exception of explicit lock operations, described later).
These include:

	xchg();
	cmpxchg();
	atomic_cmpxchg();
	atomic_inc_return();
	atomic_dec_return();
	atomic_add_return();
	atomic_sub_return();
	atomic_inc_and_test();
	atomic_dec_and_test();
	atomic_sub_and_test();
	atomic_add_negative();
	atomic_add_unless();
	test_and_set_bit();
	test_and_clear_bit();
	test_and_change_bit();

[/citation]

-Lukas

> 
> > barrier, atomic_set() is out of the scope of our interest (and it would
> > not cause the problem like that anyway) and reordering atomic_inc()
> > would not cause problem like this as well.
>