Re: Revised futex(2) man page for review

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:47:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>        FUTEX_WAIT (since Linux 2.6.0)
>               This operation tests that the value at the futex word pointed to
>               by the address uaddr still contains the expected value val,  and
>               if  so,  then sleeps awaiting FUTEX_WAKE on the futex word.  The
>               load of the value of the futex word is an atomic  memory  access
>               (i.e.,  using  atomic  machine  instructions  of  the respective
>               architecture).  This load,  the  comparison  with  the  expected
>               value,  and  starting  to  sleep  are  performed  atomically and
>               totally ordered with respect to other futex  operations  on  the
>               same  futex  word.  If the thread starts to sleep, it is consid‐
>               ered a waiter on this futex word.  If the futex value  does  not
>               match  val,  then  the  call  fails  immediately  with the error
>               EAGAIN.
> 
>               The purpose of the comparison with the expected value is to pre‐
>               vent  lost  wake-ups: If another thread changed the value of the
>               futex word after the calling thread decided to  block  based  on
>               the  prior  value, and if the other thread executed a FUTEX_WAKE
>               operation (or similar wake-up) after the value change and before
>               this  FUTEX_WAIT  operation,  then  the  latter will observe the
>               value change and will not start to sleep.
> 
>               If the timeout argument is non-NULL, its contents specify a rel‐
>               ative   timeout   for   the  wait,  measured  according  to  the
>               CLOCK_MONOTONIC clock.  (This interval will be rounded up to the
>               system clock granularity, and kernel scheduling delays mean that
>               the blocking interval may overrun by a small amount.)  If  time‐
>               out is NULL, the call blocks indefinitely.

Would it not be better to only state that the wait will not return
before the timeout -- unless woken -- and not bother with clock
granularity and scheduling delays?