Re: [patch 4/4] ipc: sem optimise simple operations

[Nick Piggin]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07:11AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [npiggin@xxxxxxx - Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:09:06PM +1000]
> ...
> | +static void update_queue_simple(struct sem_array *sma, ushort semnum)
> | +{
> | +	if (unlikely(sma->complex_count)) {
> | +		update_queue(sma);
> | +	} else {
> | +		struct sem *sem;
> | +
> | +		sem = &sma->sem_base[semnum];
> | +		if (sem->semval > 0)
> | +			update_negv_queue(sma, sem);
> | +		if (sem->semval == 0)
> | +			update_zero_queue(sma, sem);
> | +	}
> | +}
> | +
> ...
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> mostly probably miss something but can't we trgigger BUG_ON at updating
> zero queue if semaphore was created with undo list and via new operation
> reached -ERANGE on undo value?
> 
> Again, I could be missing something or plain wrong. Just a thought.

Hi Cyrill,

Thanks for looking... Hmm, you mean BUG_ON(error) due to try_atomic_semop
returning -ERANGE? I think it should not be possible because it should
prevent any operation from bringing the undo list to -ERANGE so then any
operation which does not modify the sem value should not go out of range
I think.

(I think it would be a bug if we ever return -ERANGE for a wait-for-zero
operation).

Thanks,
Nick
--
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/