Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:38 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups |
| |
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Also your interpretation of the POSIX requirement is very > > questionable: > > > > "If there are threads blocked on the mutex object referenced by mutex > > when pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, resulting in the mutex > > becoming available, the scheduling policy shall determine which > > thread shall acquire the mutex." > > The key is "scheduling policy" .. When the mutex is un-blocked the next > task to run is the same as if the scheduler was selecting tasks from the > list of blocked tasks .. For Linux, that means the highest priority > tasks should be selected.. So it's no more acceptable for the scheduler > to priority invert some tasks than it is for the futex to do it.
Sigh, when do you actually get a gripe that the default futex implementation does not and can not guarantee that at all and therefor your "correctness" patch is as important as a bag of rice which toopled over in China ?
Provide answers to the real questions I asked more than once:
What's the real world problem ? Who cares about that - except you ?
Up to the point where you are actually able to come up with that answers please direct your replies to /dev/null. That avoids that I have to touch my .procmailrc.
Thanks,
tglx
| |