[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1498780894-8253-6-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:01:14 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
dave@...olabs.net, manfred@...orfullife.com, tj@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
parri.andrea@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 06/26] ipc: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
pair. This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in
exit_sem() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
This should be safe from a performance perspective because exit_sem()
is rarely invoked in production.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
---
ipc/sem.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 947dc2348271..e88d0749a929 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -2096,7 +2096,8 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk)
* possibility where we exit while freeary() didn't
* finish unlocking sem_undo_list.
*/
- spin_unlock_wait(&ulp->lock);
+ spin_lock(&ulp->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&ulp->lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
break;
}
--
2.5.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists