From 52fdd08903a1d1162e184114837e232640191627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Benjamin LaHaise Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:56:52 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] unify x86/x86-64 semaphore code This patch moves the common code in x86 and x86-64's semaphore.c into a single file in lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. The arch specific asm stubs are left in the arch tree (in semaphore.c for i386 and in the asm for x86-64). There should be no changes in code/functionality with this patch. Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Andi Kleen Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- arch/i386/Kconfig | 4 ++ arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c | 162 ------------------------------------------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-) (limited to 'arch/i386') diff --git a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig index dcb0ad098c6..3b3b017e1c1 100644 --- a/arch/i386/Kconfig +++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ config X86 486, 586, Pentiums, and various instruction-set-compatible chips by AMD, Cyrix, and others. +config SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS + bool + default y + config MMU bool default y diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c b/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c index 469f496e55c..7455ab64394 100644 --- a/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c @@ -13,170 +13,8 @@ * rw semaphores implemented November 1999 by Benjamin LaHaise */ #include -#include -#include -#include #include -/* - * 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 - * 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. - */ - -static fastcall void __attribute_used__ __up(struct semaphore *sem) -{ - wake_up(&sem->wait); -} - -static fastcall void __attribute_used__ __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; -} - -static fastcall int __attribute_used__ __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. - */ -static fastcall int __attribute_used__ __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; -} - - /* * The semaphore operations have a special calling sequence that * allow us to do a simpler in-line version of them. These routines -- cgit v1.2.3