lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups
From
Date

On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 19:03 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 10:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > Normal futexes have no ordering guarantees at all. There is no
> > > mechanism to prevent lock stealing from lower priority tasks. So why
> > > should we care about the once a year case, where a sleepers priority
> > > is modified ?
> >
> > Lock stealing?
>
> Do you have the faintest idea how the futex code works at all ? There
> is no guarantee that the task which is woken up first gets the futex.

Thomas if you want to be abusive, talk to someone else.

> A) A task on another CPU can get it independent of its priority
> B) In case of multiple waiters wakeup there is no guarantee either

This is how I would imagine the pre-plist code would work.

> > > If you need ordering guarantees then use PI futexes.
> >
> > There are degree's of overhead with each step.. Someone may not need or
> > want priority inheritance.
>
> Then there is no need to add this artifical "correctness" at all.

huh?

> > > There are more issues vs. pi futexes as well. The simple case of
> > > futex_wait() vs. futex_adjust_waiters will just upset lockdep, but
> > > there are real dealocks vs. unqueue_me_pi waiting.
> >
> > You mean the lock ordering would cause the deadlock vs. unqueue_me_pi ,
> > or are you talking about something else?
>
> Do I write Chinese or what ?

I guess so ..

Daniel



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-24 19:27    [W:0.065 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site