From 64ac24e738823161693bf791f87adc802cf529ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 21:55:58 -0500 Subject: 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 Acked-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/semaphore.c | 187 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+) create mode 100644 kernel/semaphore.c (limited to 'kernel/semaphore.c') diff --git a/kernel/semaphore.c b/kernel/semaphore.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..d5a72702f26 --- /dev/null +++ b/kernel/semaphore.c @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@ +/* + * Copyright (c) 2008 Intel Corporation + * Author: Matthew Wilcox + * + * Distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 + */ + +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +/* + * Some notes on the implementation: + * + * down_trylock() and up() can be called from interrupt context. + * So we have to disable interrupts when taking the lock. + * + * The ->count variable, if positive, defines how many more tasks can + * acquire the semaphore. If negative, it represents how many tasks are + * waiting on the semaphore (*). If zero, no tasks are waiting, and no more + * tasks can acquire the semaphore. + * + * (*) Except for the window between one task calling up() and the task + * sleeping in a __down_common() waking up. In order to avoid a third task + * coming in and stealing the second task's wakeup, we leave the ->count + * negative. If we have a more complex situation, the ->count may become + * zero or negative (eg a semaphore with count = 2, three tasks attempt to + * acquire it, one sleeps, two finish and call up(), the second task to call + * up() notices that the list is empty and just increments count). + */ + +static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem); +static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem); +static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem); + +void down(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); + if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + __down(sem); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(down); + +int down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + unsigned long flags; + int result = 0; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); + if (unlikely(sem->count-- <= 0)) + result = __down_interruptible(sem); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); + + return result; +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_interruptible); + +/** + * down_trylock - try to acquire the semaphore, without waiting + * @sem: the semaphore to be acquired + * + * Try to acquire the semaphore atomically. Returns 0 if the mutex has + * been acquired successfully and 1 if it is contended. + * + * NOTE: This return value is inverted from both spin_trylock and + * mutex_trylock! Be careful about this when converting code. + * + * Unlike mutex_trylock, this function can be used from interrupt context, + * and the semaphore can be released by any task or interrupt. + */ +int down_trylock(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + unsigned long flags; + int count; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); + count = sem->count - 1; + if (likely(count >= 0)) + sem->count = count; + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); + + return (count < 0); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(down_trylock); + +void up(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + unsigned long flags; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); + if (likely(sem->count >= 0)) + sem->count++; + else + __up(sem); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(up); + +/* Functions for the contended case */ + +struct semaphore_waiter { + struct list_head list; + struct task_struct *task; + int up; +}; + +/* + * Wake up a process waiting on a semaphore. We need to call this from both + * __up and __down_common as it's possible to race a task into the semaphore + * if it comes in at just the right time between two tasks calling up() and + * a third task waking up. This function assumes the wait_list is already + * checked for being non-empty. + */ +static noinline void __sched __up_down_common(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + struct semaphore_waiter *waiter = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list, + struct semaphore_waiter, list); + list_del(&waiter->list); + waiter->up = 1; + wake_up_process(waiter->task); +} + +/* + * Because this function is inlined, the 'state' parameter will be constant, + * and thus optimised away by the compiler. + */ +static inline int __sched __down_common(struct semaphore *sem, long state) +{ + int result = 0; + struct task_struct *task = current; + struct semaphore_waiter waiter; + + list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list); + waiter.task = task; + waiter.up = 0; + + for (;;) { + if (state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE && signal_pending(task)) + goto interrupted; + __set_task_state(task, state); + spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock); + schedule(); + spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock); + if (waiter.up) + goto woken; + } + + interrupted: + list_del(&waiter.list); + result = -EINTR; + woken: + /* + * Account for the process which woke us up. For the case where + * we're interrupted, we need to increment the count on our own + * behalf. I don't believe we can hit the case where the + * sem->count hits zero, *and* there's a second task sleeping, + * but it doesn't hurt, that's not a commonly exercised path and + * it's not a performance path either. + */ + if (unlikely((++sem->count >= 0) && !list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) + __up_down_common(sem); + return result; +} + +static noinline void __sched __down(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + __down_common(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); +} + +static noinline int __sched __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + return __down_common(sem, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); +} + +static noinline void __sched __up(struct semaphore *sem) +{ + if (unlikely(list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) + sem->count++; + else + __up_down_common(sem); +} -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2