[patch 06/19] mutex subsystem, add include/asm-arm/mutex.h
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Jan 03 2006 - 05:11:58 EST
From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx>
add the ARM version of mutex.h, which is optimized in assembly for
ARMv6, and uses the xchg implementation on pre-ARMv6.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
----
include/asm-arm/mutex.h | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 128 insertions(+)
Index: linux/include/asm-arm/mutex.h
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ linux/include/asm-arm/mutex.h
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+/*
+ * include/asm-arm/mutex.h
+ *
+ * ARM optimized mutex locking primitives
+ *
+ * Please look into asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h for a formal definition.
+ */
+#ifndef _ASM_MUTEX_H
+#define _ASM_MUTEX_H
+
+#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 6
+/* On pre-ARMv6 hardware the swp based implementation is the most efficient. */
+# include <asm-generic/mutex-xchg.h>
+#else
+
+/*
+ * Attempting to lock a mutex on ARMv6+ can be done with a bastardized
+ * atomic decrement (it is not a reliable atomic decrement but it satisfies
+ * the defined semantics for our purpose, while being smaller and faster
+ * than a real atomic decrement or atomic swap. The idea is to attempt
+ * decrementing the lock value only once. If once decremented it isn't zero,
+ * or if its store-back fails due to a dispute on the exclusive store, we
+ * simply bail out immediately through the slow path where the lock will be
+ * reattempted until it succeeds.
+ */
+#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn) \
+do { \
+ int __ex_flag, __res; \
+ \
+ typecheck(atomic_t *, count); \
+ typecheck_fn(fastcall void (*)(atomic_t *), fail_fn); \
+ \
+ __asm__ ( \
+ "ldrex %0, [%2] \n" \
+ "sub %0, %0, #1 \n" \
+ "strex %1, %0, [%2] \n" \
+ \
+ : "=&r" (__res), "=&r" (__ex_flag) \
+ : "r" (&(count)->counter) \
+ : "cc","memory" ); \
+ \
+ if (unlikely(__res || __ex_flag)) \
+ fail_fn(count); \
+} while (0)
+
+#define __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(count, fail_fn) \
+({ \
+ int __ex_flag, __res; \
+ \
+ typecheck(atomic_t *, count); \
+ typecheck_fn(fastcall int (*)(atomic_t *), fail_fn); \
+ \
+ __asm__ ( \
+ "ldrex %0, [%2] \n" \
+ "sub %0, %0, #1 \n" \
+ "strex %1, %0, [%2] \n" \
+ \
+ : "=&r" (__res), "=&r" (__ex_flag) \
+ : "r" (&(count)->counter) \
+ : "cc","memory" ); \
+ \
+ __res |= __ex_flag; \
+ if (unlikely(__res != 0)) \
+ __res = fail_fn(count); \
+ __res; \
+})
+
+/*
+ * Same trick is used for the unlock fast path. However the original value,
+ * rather than the result, is used to test for success in order to have
+ * better generated assembly.
+ */
+#define __mutex_fastpath_unlock(count, fail_fn) \
+do { \
+ int __ex_flag, __res, __orig; \
+ \
+ typecheck(atomic_t *, count); \
+ typecheck_fn(fastcall void (*)(atomic_t *), fail_fn); \
+ \
+ __asm__ ( \
+ "ldrex %0, [%3] \n" \
+ "add %1, %0, #1 \n" \
+ "strex %2, %1, [%3] \n" \
+ \
+ : "=&r" (__orig), "=&r" (__res), "=&r" (__ex_flag) \
+ : "r" (&(count)->counter) \
+ : "cc","memory" ); \
+ \
+ if (unlikely(__orig || __ex_flag)) \
+ fail_fn(count); \
+} while (0)
+
+/*
+ * If the unlock was done on a contended lock, or if the unlock simply fails
+ * then the mutex remains locked.
+ */
+#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() 1
+
+/*
+ * For __mutex_fastpath_trylock we use another construct which could be
+ * described as a "single value cmpxchg".
+ *
+ * This provides the needed trylock semantics like cmpxchg would, but it is
+ * lighter and less generic than a true cmpxchg implementation.
+ */
+static inline int
+__mutex_fastpath_trylock(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
+{
+ int __ex_flag, __res, __orig;
+
+ __asm__ (
+
+ "1: ldrex %0, [%3] \n"
+ "subs %1, %0, #1 \n"
+ "strexeq %2, %1, [%3] \n"
+ "movlt %0, #0 \n"
+ "cmpeq %2, #0 \n"
+ "bgt 1b \n"
+
+ : "=&r" (__orig), "=&r" (__res), "=&r" (__ex_flag)
+ : "r" (&count->counter)
+ : "cc", "memory" );
+
+ return __orig;
+}
+
+#endif
+#endif
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/