| /* | 
 |  * 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; | 
 | } |