| /* | |
| * 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; | |
| } |