commit 2e094abf upstream.

When I fixed bugs in the sem_lock() logic, I was more conservative than
necessary.  Therefore it is safe to replace the smp_mb() with smp_rmb().
And: With smp_rmb(), semop() syscalls are up to 10% faster.

The race we must protect against is:

	sem->lock is free
	sma->complex_count = 0
	sma->sem_perm.lock held by thread B

thread A:

A: spin_lock(&sem->lock)

			B: sma->complex_count++; (now 1)
			B: spin_unlock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);

A: spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
A: XXXXX memory barrier
A: if (sma->complex_count == 0)

Thread A must read the increased complex_count value, i.e. the read must
not be reordered with the read of sem_perm.lock done by spin_is_locked().

Since it's about ordering of reads, smp_rmb() is sufficient.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: update sem_lock() comment, from Davidlohr]
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Acked-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
[ luis: 3.16 prereq for:
  3ed1f8a9 "ipc/sem.c: update/correct memory barriers" ]
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com>