diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | include/linux/semaphore.h | 9 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/semaphore.c | 78 |
2 files changed, 27 insertions, 60 deletions
diff --git a/include/linux/semaphore.h b/include/linux/semaphore.h index a107aeb..a7125da 100644 --- a/include/linux/semaphore.h +++ b/include/linux/semaphore.h @@ -15,15 +15,12 @@ /* * The spinlock controls access to the other members of the semaphore. - * 'count' is decremented by every task which calls down*() and incremented - * by every call to up(). Thus, if it is positive, it indicates how many - * more tasks may acquire the lock. If it is negative, it indicates how - * many tasks are waiting for the lock. Tasks waiting for the lock are - * kept on the wait_list. + * 'count' represents how many more tasks can acquire this semaphore. + * Tasks waiting for the lock are kept on the wait_list. */ struct semaphore { spinlock_t lock; - int count; + unsigned int count; struct list_head wait_list; }; diff --git a/kernel/semaphore.c b/kernel/semaphore.c index 5a12a85..bef977b 100644 --- a/kernel/semaphore.c +++ b/kernel/semaphore.c @@ -18,18 +18,8 @@ * down_trylock() and up() can be called from interrupt context. * So we have to disable interrupts when taking the lock. * - * The ->count variable, if positive, defines how many more tasks can - * acquire the semaphore. If negative, it represents how many tasks are - * waiting on the semaphore (*). If zero, no tasks are waiting, and no more - * tasks can acquire the semaphore. - * - * (*) Except for the window between one task calling up() and the task - * sleeping in a __down_common() waking up. In order to avoid a third task - * coming in and stealing the second task's wakeup, we leave the ->count - * negative. If we have a more complex situation, the ->count may become - * zero or negative (eg a semaphore with count = 2, three tasks attempt to - * acquire it, one sleeps, two finish and call up(), the second task to call - * up() notices that the list is empty and just increments count). + * The ->count variable defines how many more tasks can acquire the + * semaphore. If it's zero, there may be tasks waiting on the list. */ static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem); @@ -43,7 +33,9 @@ void down(struct semaphore *sem) unsigned long flags; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); - if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + if (likely(sem->count > 0)) + sem->count--; + else __down(sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); } @@ -55,7 +47,9 @@ int down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem) int result = 0; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); - if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + if (likely(sem->count > 0)) + sem->count--; + else result = __down_interruptible(sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); @@ -69,7 +63,9 @@ int down_killable(struct semaphore *sem) int result = 0; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); - if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + if (likely(sem->count > 0)) + sem->count--; + else result = __down_killable(sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); @@ -111,7 +107,9 @@ int down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long jiffies) int result = 0; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); - if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + if (likely(sem->count > 0)) + sem->count--; + else result = __down_timeout(sem, jiffies); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); @@ -124,7 +122,7 @@ void up(struct semaphore *sem) unsigned long flags; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); - if (likely(sem->count >= 0)) + if (likely(list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) sem->count++; else __up(sem); @@ -141,22 +139,6 @@ struct semaphore_waiter { }; /* - * Wake up a process waiting on a semaphore. We need to call this from both - * __up and __down_common as it's possible to race a task into the semaphore - * if it comes in at just the right time between two tasks calling up() and - * a third task waking up. This function assumes the wait_list is already - * checked for being non-empty. - */ -static noinline void __sched __up_down_common(struct semaphore *sem) -{ - struct semaphore_waiter *waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, - struct semaphore_waiter, list); - list_del(&waiter->list); - waiter->up = 1; - wake_up_process(waiter->task); -} - -/* * Because this function is inlined, the 'state' parameter will be * constant, and thus optimised away by the compiler. Likewise the * 'timeout' parameter for the cases without timeouts. @@ -164,7 +146,6 @@ static noinline void __sched __up_down_common(struct semaphore *sem) static inline int __sched __down_common(struct semaphore *sem, long state, long timeout) { - int result = 0; struct task_struct *task = current; struct semaphore_waiter waiter; @@ -184,28 +165,16 @@ static inline int __sched __down_common(struct semaphore *sem, long state, timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout); spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock); if (waiter.up) - goto woken; + return 0; } timed_out: list_del(&waiter.list); - result = -ETIME; - goto woken; + return -ETIME; + interrupted: list_del(&waiter.list); - result = -EINTR; - woken: - /* - * Account for the process which woke us up. For the case where - * we're interrupted, we need to increment the count on our own - * behalf. I don't believe we can hit the case where the - * sem->count hits zero, *and* there's a second task sleeping, - * but it doesn't hurt, that's not a commonly exercised path and - * it's not a performance path either. - */ - if (unlikely((++sem->count >= 0) && !list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) - __up_down_common(sem); - return result; + return -EINTR; } static noinline void __sched __down(struct semaphore *sem) @@ -230,8 +199,9 @@ static noinline int __sched __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long jiffies) static noinline void __sched __up(struct semaphore *sem) { - if (unlikely(list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) - sem->count++; - else - __up_down_common(sem); + struct semaphore_waiter *waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, + struct semaphore_waiter, list); + list_del(&waiter->list); + waiter->up = 1; + wake_up_process(waiter->task); } |
