123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166 |
- /*
- * arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c -- Semaphore support
- *
- * Copyright (C) 1998-2000 IBM Corporation
- * Copyright (C) 1999 Linus Torvalds
- *
- * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General
- * Public License. See the file COPYING in the main directory of this
- * archive for more details.
- *
- * This file is a copy of the s390 version, arch/s390/kernel/semaphore.c
- * Author(s): Martin Schwidefsky
- * which was derived from the i386 version, linux/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c
- */
- #include <linux/errno.h>
- #include <linux/sched.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 semaphore spinlock.
- *
- * 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.
- */
- void __up(struct semaphore *sem)
- {
- wake_up(&sem->wait);
- }
- static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(semaphore_lock);
- void __sched __down(struct semaphore * sem)
- {
- struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk);
- tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
- add_wait_queue_exclusive(&sem->wait, &wait);
- spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- sem->sleepers++;
- for (;;) {
- int sleepers = sem->sleepers;
- /*
- * Add "everybody else" into it. They aren't
- * playing, because we own the spinlock.
- */
- if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) {
- sem->sleepers = 0;
- break;
- }
- sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */
- spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- schedule();
- tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
- spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- }
- spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- remove_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);
- tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
- wake_up(&sem->wait);
- }
- int __sched __down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem)
- {
- int retval = 0;
- struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk);
- tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
- add_wait_queue_exclusive(&sem->wait, &wait);
- spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- 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. The
- * "-1" is because we're still hoping to get
- * the lock.
- */
- if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) {
- sem->sleepers = 0;
- break;
- }
- sem->sleepers = 1; /* us - see -1 above */
- spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- schedule();
- tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
- spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- }
- spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
- tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
- remove_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);
- wake_up(&sem->wait);
- 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(&semaphore_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.
- */
- if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers, &sem->count))
- wake_up(&sem->wait);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&semaphore_lock, flags);
- return 1;
- }
|