From: Benjamin LaHaise This patch moves the common code in x86 and x86-64's semaphore.c into a single file in lib/semaphore-sleepers.c. The arch specific asm stubs are left in the arch tree (in semaphore.c for i386 and in the asm for x86-64). There should be no changes in code/functionality with this patch. Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Andi Kleen Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- dev/null | 180 ------------------------------------------- arch/i386/Kconfig | 4 arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c | 162 -------------------------------------- arch/um/Kconfig_i386 | 4 arch/um/Kconfig_x86_64 | 4 arch/x86_64/Kconfig | 4 arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile | 2 lib/Makefile | 1 lib/semaphore-sleepers.c | 177 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 9 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-) diff -puN arch/i386/Kconfig~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/i386/Kconfig --- 25/arch/i386/Kconfig~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/i386/Kconfig Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ config X86 486, 586, Pentiums, and various instruction-set-compatible chips by AMD, Cyrix, and others. +config SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS + bool + default y + config MMU bool default y diff -puN arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c --- 25/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -13,171 +13,9 @@ * rw semaphores implemented November 1999 by Benjamin LaHaise */ #include -#include -#include -#include #include /* - * 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 - * 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. - */ - -static fastcall void __attribute_used__ __up(struct semaphore *sem) -{ - wake_up(&sem->wait); -} - -static fastcall void __attribute_used__ __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; -} - -static fastcall int __attribute_used__ __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. - */ -static fastcall int __attribute_used__ __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; -} - - -/* * The semaphore operations have a special calling sequence that * allow us to do a simpler in-line version of them. These routines * need to convert that sequence back into the C sequence when diff -puN arch/um/Kconfig_i386~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/um/Kconfig_i386 --- 25/arch/um/Kconfig_i386~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/um/Kconfig_i386 Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ config 64BIT bool default n +config SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS + bool + default y + config TOP_ADDR hex default 0xc0000000 if !HOST_2G_2G diff -puN arch/um/Kconfig_x86_64~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/um/Kconfig_x86_64 --- 25/arch/um/Kconfig_x86_64~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/um/Kconfig_x86_64 Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -6,6 +6,10 @@ config 64BIT bool default y +config SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS + bool + default y + config TOP_ADDR hex default 0x80000000 diff -puN arch/x86_64/Kconfig~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/x86_64/Kconfig --- 25/arch/x86_64/Kconfig~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/Kconfig Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ config X86 bool default y +config SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS + bool + default y + config MMU bool default y diff -puN arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile --- 25/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ extra-y := head.o head64.o init_task.o vmlinux.lds EXTRA_AFLAGS := -traditional -obj-y := process.o semaphore.o signal.o entry.o traps.o irq.o \ +obj-y := process.o signal.o entry.o traps.o irq.o \ ptrace.o time.o ioport.o ldt.o setup.o i8259.o sys_x86_64.o \ x8664_ksyms.o i387.o syscall.o vsyscall.o \ setup64.o bootflag.o e820.o reboot.o quirks.o diff -L arch/x86_64/kernel/semaphore.c -puN arch/x86_64/kernel/semaphore.c~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code /dev/null --- 25/arch/x86_64/kernel/semaphore.c +++ /dev/null Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002 @@ -1,180 +0,0 @@ -/* - * 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 - */ -#include -#include -#include -#include - -#include - -/* - * 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 - * 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); -} - -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; -} - -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. - */ -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; -} - - diff -puN lib/Makefile~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code lib/Makefile --- 25/lib/Makefile~unify-x86-x86-64-semaphore-code Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 +++ 25-akpm/lib/Makefile Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ endif lib-$(CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK) += rwsem-spinlock.o lib-$(CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM) += rwsem.o +lib-$(CONFIG_SEMAPHORE_SLEEPERS) += semaphore-sleepers.o lib-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT) += find_next_bit.o obj-$(CONFIG_LOCK_KERNEL) += kernel_lock.o obj-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT) += smp_processor_id.o diff -puN /dev/null lib/semaphore-sleepers.c --- /dev/null Thu Apr 11 07:25:15 2002 +++ 25-akpm/lib/semaphore-sleepers.c Tue Jul 26 14:25:56 2005 @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ +/* + * 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 + */ +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +/* + * 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 + * 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; +} _