On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 09:23:03PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 06/30/2017 02:01 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >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 <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> >Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net>
> >Cc: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
> >Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> >Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> >Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> >Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.and...@gmail.com>
> >Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> Acked-by: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
Applied, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> >---
> > 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;
> > }
>
>
