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@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Acked-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8083f29349
commit
e0892e086a
1 changed files with 2 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -2091,7 +2091,8 @@ 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;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue