![]() When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than necessary. Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb(). And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster. The race we must protect against is: sem->lock is free sma->complex_count = 0 sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B thread A: A: spin_lock(&sem->lock) B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1) B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock); A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock); A: XXXXX memory barrier A: if (sma->complex_count == 0) Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked(). Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient. [akpm@linux-foundation.org: update sem_lock() comment, from Davidlohr] Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
compat.c | ||
compat_mq.c | ||
ipc_sysctl.c | ||
ipcns_notifier.c | ||
Makefile | ||
mq_sysctl.c | ||
mqueue.c | ||
msg.c | ||
msgutil.c | ||
namespace.c | ||
sem.c | ||
shm.c | ||
syscall.c | ||
util.c | ||
util.h |