3.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 6d07b68ce16ae9535955ba2059dedba5309c3ca1 upstream.
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
ipc/sem.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -257,12 +257,20 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_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);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html