/*
* 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/config.h>
#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;
}
