Generic semaphore implementation

Semaphores are no longer performance-critical, so a generic C
implementation is better for maintainability, debuggability and
extensibility.  Thanks to Peter Zijlstra for fixing the lockdep
warning.  Thanks to Harvey Harrison for pointing out that the
unlikely() was unnecessary.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 166 deletions

diff --git a/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c b/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c
deleted file mode 100644
index fc89fd661c9..00000000000
--- a/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,166 +0,0 @@
-/*
- * 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;
-}