Loading...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 | /* * i386 and x86-64 semaphore implementation. * * (C) Copyright 1999 Linus Torvalds * * Portions Copyright 1999 Red Hat, Inc. * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version * 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. * * rw semaphores implemented November 1999 by Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> */ #include <linux/sched.h> #include <linux/err.h> #include <linux/init.h> #include <asm/semaphore.h> /* * Semaphores are implemented using a two-way counter: * The "count" variable is decremented for each process * that tries to acquire the semaphore, while the "sleeping" * variable is a count of such acquires. * * Notably, the inline "up()" and "down()" functions can * efficiently test if they need to do any extra work (up * needs to do something only if count was negative before * the increment operation. * * "sleeping" and the contention routine ordering is protected * by the spinlock in the semaphore's waitqueue head. * * Note that these functions are only called when there is * contention on the lock, and as such all this is the * "non-critical" part of the whole semaphore business. The * critical part is the inline stuff in <asm/semaphore.h> * where we want to avoid any extra jumps and calls. */ /* * Logic: * - only on a boundary condition do we need to care. When we go * from a negative count to a non-negative, we wake people up. * - when we go from a non-negative count to a negative do we * (a) synchronize with the "sleeper" count and (b) make sure * that we're on the wakeup list before we synchronize so that * we cannot lose wakeup events. */ fastcall void __up(struct semaphore *sem) { wake_up(&sem->wait); } fastcall void __sched __down(struct semaphore * sem) { struct task_struct *tsk = current; DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk); unsigned long flags; tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); add_wait_queue_exclusive_locked(&sem->wait, &wait); sem->sleepers++; for (;;) { int sleepers = sem->sleepers; /* * Add "everybody else" into it. They aren't * playing, because we own the spinlock in * the wait_queue_head. */ if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) { sem->sleepers = 0; break; } sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); schedule(); spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; } remove_wait_queue_locked(&sem->wait, &wait); wake_up_locked(&sem->wait); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING; } fastcall int __sched __down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem) { int retval = 0; struct task_struct *tsk = current; DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk); unsigned long flags; tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); add_wait_queue_exclusive_locked(&sem->wait, &wait); sem->sleepers++; for (;;) { int sleepers = sem->sleepers; /* * With signals pending, this turns into * the trylock failure case - we won't be * sleeping, and we* can't get the lock as * it has contention. Just correct the count * and exit. */ if (signal_pending(current)) { retval = -EINTR; sem->sleepers = 0; atomic_add(sleepers, &sem->count); break; } /* * Add "everybody else" into it. They aren't * playing, because we own the spinlock in * wait_queue_head. The "-1" is because we're * still hoping to get the semaphore. */ if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) { sem->sleepers = 0; break; } sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); schedule(); spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; } remove_wait_queue_locked(&sem->wait, &wait); wake_up_locked(&sem->wait); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING; return retval; } /* * Trylock failed - make sure we correct for * having decremented the count. * * We could have done the trylock with a * single "cmpxchg" without failure cases, * but then it wouldn't work on a 386. */ fastcall int __down_trylock(struct semaphore * sem) { int sleepers; unsigned long flags; spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait.lock, flags); sleepers = sem->sleepers + 1; sem->sleepers = 0; /* * Add "everybody else" and us into it. They aren't * playing, because we own the spinlock in the * wait_queue_head. */ if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers, &sem->count)) { wake_up_locked(&sem->wait); } spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait.lock, flags); return 1; } |