|  | /* | 
|  | * IA-64 semaphore implementation (derived from x86 version). | 
|  | * | 
|  | * Copyright (C) 1999-2000, 2002 Hewlett-Packard Co | 
|  | *	David Mosberger-Tang <davidm@hpl.hp.com> | 
|  | */ | 
|  |  | 
|  | /* | 
|  | * Semaphores are implemented using a two-way counter: The "count" | 
|  | * variable is decremented for each process that tries to acquire the | 
|  | * semaphore, while the "sleepers" 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. | 
|  | */ | 
|  | #include <linux/sched.h> | 
|  | #include <linux/init.h> | 
|  |  | 
|  | #include <asm/errno.h> | 
|  | #include <asm/semaphore.h> | 
|  |  | 
|  | /* | 
|  | * 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 "sleepers" 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. | 
|  | */ | 
|  | int | 
|  | __down_trylock (struct semaphore *sem) | 
|  | { | 
|  | unsigned long flags; | 
|  | int sleepers; | 
|  |  | 
|  | 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; | 
|  | } |