forked from Minki/linux
166 lines
4.2 KiB
C
166 lines
4.2 KiB
C
|
/*
|
||
|
* IA-64 semaphore implementation (derived from x86 version).
|
||
|
*
|
||
|
* Copyright (C) 1999-2000, 2002 Hewlett-Packard Co
|
||
|
* David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
|
||
|
*/
|
||
|
|
||
|
/*
|
||
|
* Semaphores are implemented using a two-way counter: The "count"
|
||
|
* variable is decremented for each process that tries to acquire the
|
||
|
* semaphore, while the "sleepers" 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.
|
||
|
*/
|
||
|
#include <linux/sched.h>
|
||
|
#include <linux/init.h>
|
||
|
|
||
|
#include <asm/errno.h>
|
||
|
#include <asm/semaphore.h>
|
||
|
|
||
|
/*
|
||
|
* 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 "sleepers" count and (b) make sure
|
||
|
* that we're on the wakeup list before we synchronize so that
|
||
|
* we cannot lose wakeup events.
|
||
|
*/
|
||
|
|
||
|
void
|
||
|
__up (struct semaphore *sem)
|
||
|
{
|
||
|
wake_up(&sem->wait);
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
|
||
|
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;
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
*/
|
||
|
int
|
||
|
__down_trylock (struct semaphore *sem)
|
||
|
{
|
||
|
unsigned long flags;
|
||
|
int sleepers;
|
||
|
|
||
|
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;
|
||
|
}
|