forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()
Operations that need access to the whole array must guarantee that there are no simple operations ongoing. Right now this is achieved by spin_unlock_wait(sem->lock) on all semaphores. If complex_count is nonzero, then this spin_unlock_wait() is not necessary, because it was already performed in the past by the thread that increased complex_count and even though sem_perm.lock was dropped inbetween, no simple operation could have started, because simple operations cannot start when complex_count is non-zero. Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> Cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5e9d527591
commit
6d07b68ce1
|
@ -257,12 +257,20 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head)
|
|||
* Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
|
||||
* New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
|
||||
* that sem_perm.lock is free.
|
||||
* that a) sem_perm.lock is free and b) complex_count is 0.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int i;
|
||||
struct sem *sem;
|
||||
|
||||
if (sma->complex_count) {
|
||||
/* The thread that increased sma->complex_count waited on
|
||||
* all sem->lock locks. Thus we don't need to wait again.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
|
||||
sem = sma->sem_base + i;
|
||||
spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user