Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself :)
From: Davidlohr Bueso
Subject: [PATCH] rwsem: no need for explicit signed longs
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
lib/rwsem.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 4e4c889..50fdd89 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk;
struct list_head *next;
- signed long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
+ long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
@@ -144,11 +144,10 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
+ long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- signed long count;
-
+
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
waiter.task = tsk;
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
@@ -192,10 +191,9 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct
rw_semaphore *sem)
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- signed long count;
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
waiter.task = tsk;
--
1.7.11.7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself :)
From: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
Subject: [PATCH] rwsem: no need for explicit signed longs
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso davidlohr.bu...@hp.com
---
lib/rwsem.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 4e4c889..50fdd89 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk;
struct list_head *next;
- signed long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
+ long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
waiter = list_entry(sem-wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
if (waiter-type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
@@ -144,11 +144,10 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum
rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
+ long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- signed long count;
-
+
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
waiter.task = tsk;
waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
@@ -192,10 +191,9 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct
rw_semaphore *sem)
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- signed long count;
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
waiter.task = tsk;
--
1.7.11.7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
On 03/15/2013 06:54 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 03:54 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
> identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
>
> This is because we want to make different optimizations in
> rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
> step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
> following steps.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse
>
> ---
> lib/rwsem.c | 72
> -
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
> index 40636454cf3c..fb658af1c12c 100644
> --- a/lib/rwsem.c
> +++ b/lib/rwsem.c
> @@ -178,12 +178,12 @@ try_again_write:
> }
>
> /*
> - * wait for a lock to be granted
> + * wait for the read lock to be granted
> */
> -static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
> -rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> - enum rwsem_waiter_type type, signed long adjustment)
> +struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> + enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
> + signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
Again, just my opinion (and I suspect you only did this because that's
what was here) but I think this should be:
+ long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
> struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> signed long count;
Same here.
> @@ -238,21 +238,63 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> }
>
> /*
> - * wait for the read lock to be granted
> - */
> -struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> -{
> - return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ,
> - -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS);
> -}
> -
> -/*
> * wait for the write lock to be granted
> */
> struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore
> *sem)
> {
> - return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE,
> - -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
> + enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
> + signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
Same here.
> + struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> + struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> + signed long count;
And here.
> +
> + /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
> + waiter.task = tsk;
> + waiter.type = type;
> + get_task_struct(tsk);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(>wait_lock);
> + if (list_empty(>wait_list))
> + adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
> + list_add_tail(, >wait_list);
> +
> + /* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
> + count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
> +
> + /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
> + *
> + * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
> + * were already threads queued before us and there are no active
> + * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
> + * locks that were queued ahead of us. */
> + if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
> + sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
> + else if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> + adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
> + sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
> +
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
> +
> + /* wait to be given the lock */
> + while (true) {
> + set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (!waiter.task)
> + break;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(>wait_lock);
> + /* Try to get the writer sem, may steal from the head writer: */
> + if (type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
> + if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, )) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
> + return sem;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
> + schedule();
> + }
> +
> + tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> +
> + return sem;
> }
>
> /*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
On 03/15/2013 06:54 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel r...@redhat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 03:54 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com
---
lib/rwsem.c | 72
-
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 40636454cf3c..fb658af1c12c 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -178,12 +178,12 @@ try_again_write:
}
/*
- * wait for a lock to be granted
+ * wait for the read lock to be granted
*/
-static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
-rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
- enum rwsem_waiter_type type, signed long adjustment)
+struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
Again, just my opinion (and I suspect you only did this because that's
what was here) but I think this should be:
+ long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
signed long count;
Same here.
@@ -238,21 +238,63 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
}
/*
- * wait for the read lock to be granted
- */
-struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
-{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS);
-}
-
-/*
* wait for the write lock to be granted
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore
*sem)
{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
Same here.
+ struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ signed long count;
And here.
+
+ /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
+ waiter.task = tsk;
+ waiter.type = type;
+ get_task_struct(tsk);
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ if (list_empty(sem-wait_list))
+ adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ list_add_tail(waiter.list, sem-wait_list);
+
+ /* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
+ count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
+
+ /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
+ *
+ * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
+ * were already threads queued before us and there are no active
+ * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
+ * locks that were queued ahead of us. */
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
+ else if (count RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
+ adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+
+ /* wait to be given the lock */
+ while (true) {
+ set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ if (!waiter.task)
+ break;
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ /* Try to get the writer sem, may steal from the head writer: */
+ if (type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
+ if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, waiter)) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ return sem;
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ schedule();
+ }
+
+ tsk-state = TASK_RUNNING;
+
+ return sem;
}
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse
---
lib/rwsem.c | 72 -
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 40636454cf3c..fb658af1c12c 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -178,12 +178,12 @@ try_again_write:
}
/*
- * wait for a lock to be granted
+ * wait for the read lock to be granted
*/
-static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
-rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
-enum rwsem_waiter_type type, signed long adjustment)
+struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
signed long count;
@@ -238,21 +238,63 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
}
/*
- * wait for the read lock to be granted
- */
-struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
-{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS);
-}
-
-/*
* wait for the write lock to be granted
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ signed long count;
+
+ /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
+ waiter.task = tsk;
+ waiter.type = type;
+ get_task_struct(tsk);
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(>wait_lock);
+ if (list_empty(>wait_list))
+ adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ list_add_tail(, >wait_list);
+
+ /* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
+ count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
+
+ /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
+*
+* Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
+* were already threads queued before us and there are no active
+* writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
+* locks that were queued ahead of us. */
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
+ else if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
+adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
+
+ /* wait to be given the lock */
+ while (true) {
+ set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ if (!waiter.task)
+ break;
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(>wait_lock);
+ /* Try to get the writer sem, may steal from the head writer: */
+ if (type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
+ if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, )) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
+ return sem;
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(>wait_lock);
+ schedule();
+ }
+
+ tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+
+ return sem;
}
/*
--
1.8.1.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed
Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two
identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed.
This is because we want to make different optimizations in
rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication
step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the
following steps.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com
---
lib/rwsem.c | 72 -
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 40636454cf3c..fb658af1c12c 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -178,12 +178,12 @@ try_again_write:
}
/*
- * wait for a lock to be granted
+ * wait for the read lock to be granted
*/
-static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
-rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
-enum rwsem_waiter_type type, signed long adjustment)
+struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
signed long count;
@@ -238,21 +238,63 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
}
/*
- * wait for the read lock to be granted
- */
-struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
-{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS);
-}
-
-/*
* wait for the write lock to be granted
*/
struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE,
- -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
+ enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
+ signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
+ struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+ signed long count;
+
+ /* set up my own style of waitqueue */
+ waiter.task = tsk;
+ waiter.type = type;
+ get_task_struct(tsk);
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ if (list_empty(sem-wait_list))
+ adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ list_add_tail(waiter.list, sem-wait_list);
+
+ /* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
+ count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
+
+ /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
+*
+* Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
+* were already threads queued before us and there are no active
+* writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
+* locks that were queued ahead of us. */
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
+ else if (count RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
+adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
+
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+
+ /* wait to be given the lock */
+ while (true) {
+ set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+ if (!waiter.task)
+ break;
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ /* Try to get the writer sem, may steal from the head writer: */
+ if (type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
+ if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, waiter)) {
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ return sem;
+ }
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(sem-wait_lock);
+ schedule();
+ }
+
+ tsk-state = TASK_RUNNING;
+
+ return sem;
}
/*
--
1.8.1.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
