From: npiggin@suse.de
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net>,
Pierre Peiffer <peifferp@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [patch 2/4] ipc: sem use list operations
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:09:04 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090811111606.997443191@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20090811110902.255877673@suse.de
[-- Attachment #1: ipc-sem-use-list-ops.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2838 bytes --]
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
---
ipc/sem.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/ipc/sem.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/ipc/sem.c
+++ linux-2.6/ipc/sem.c
@@ -402,58 +402,45 @@ undo:
*/
static void update_queue (struct sem_array * sma)
{
- int error;
- struct sem_queue * q;
+ struct sem_queue *q, *tq;
+
+again:
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(q, tq, &sma->sem_pending, list) {
+ int error;
+ int alter;
- q = list_entry(sma->sem_pending.next, struct sem_queue, list);
- while (&q->list != &sma->sem_pending) {
error = try_atomic_semop(sma, q->sops, q->nsops,
q->undo, q->pid);
/* Does q->sleeper still need to sleep? */
- if (error <= 0) {
- struct sem_queue *n;
+ if (error > 0)
+ continue;
+
+ list_del(&q->list);
+
+ /*
+ * The next operation that must be checked depends on the type
+ * of the completed operation:
+ * - if the operation modified the array, then restart from the
+ * head of the queue and check for threads that might be
+ * waiting for semaphore values to become 0.
+ * - if the operation didn't modify the array, then just
+ * continue.
+ */
+ alter = q->alter;
+
+ /* wake up the waiting thread */
+ q->status = IN_WAKEUP;
+
+ wake_up_process(q->sleeper);
+ /* hands-off: q will disappear immediately after
+ * writing q->status.
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+ q->status = error;
- /*
- * Continue scanning. The next operation
- * that must be checked depends on the type of the
- * completed operation:
- * - if the operation modified the array, then
- * restart from the head of the queue and
- * check for threads that might be waiting
- * for semaphore values to become 0.
- * - if the operation didn't modify the array,
- * then just continue.
- * The order of list_del() and reading ->next
- * is crucial: In the former case, the list_del()
- * must be done first [because we might be the
- * first entry in ->sem_pending], in the latter
- * case the list_del() must be done last
- * [because the list is invalid after the list_del()]
- */
- if (q->alter) {
- list_del(&q->list);
- n = list_entry(sma->sem_pending.next,
- struct sem_queue, list);
- } else {
- n = list_entry(q->list.next, struct sem_queue,
- list);
- list_del(&q->list);
- }
-
- /* wake up the waiting thread */
- q->status = IN_WAKEUP;
-
- wake_up_process(q->sleeper);
- /* hands-off: q will disappear immediately after
- * writing q->status.
- */
- smp_wmb();
- q->status = error;
- q = n;
- } else {
- q = list_entry(q->list.next, struct sem_queue, list);
- }
+ if (alter)
+ goto again;
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-11 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-11 11:09 [patch 0/4] ipc sem improvements npiggin
2009-08-11 11:09 ` [patch 1/4] ipc: sem optimise undo list search npiggin
2009-08-16 13:17 ` Manfred Spraul
2009-08-11 11:09 ` npiggin [this message]
2009-08-16 13:18 ` [patch 2/4] ipc: sem use list operations Manfred Spraul
2009-08-11 11:09 ` [patch 3/4] ipc: sem preempt improve npiggin
2009-08-16 13:20 ` Manfred Spraul
2009-08-11 11:09 ` [patch 4/4] ipc: sem optimise simple operations npiggin
2009-08-11 18:19 ` Manfred Spraul
2009-08-11 18:23 ` Zach Brown
2009-08-12 4:07 ` Nick Piggin
2009-08-12 18:35 ` Manfred Spraul
2009-08-14 8:58 ` Nick Piggin
2009-08-14 17:53 ` Manfred Spraul
2009-08-11 20:07 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-08-12 4:48 ` Nick Piggin
2009-08-12 5:43 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-08-14 18:48 ` Manfred Spraul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090811111606.997443191@suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=Nadia.Derbey@bull.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=peifferp@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.