123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185 |
- /*
- * linux/arch/m32r/semaphore.c
- * orig : i386 2.6.4
- *
- * M32R semaphore implementation.
- *
- * Copyright (c) 2002 - 2004 Hitoshi Yamamoto
- */
- /*
- * i386 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.
- */
- asmlinkage void __up(struct semaphore *sem)
- {
- wake_up(&sem->wait);
- }
- asmlinkage 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;
- }
- asmlinkage 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.
- */
- asmlinkage 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;
- }
|