From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752992AbcDZW1O (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:27:14 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:51387 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752465AbcDZW1M (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:27:12 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:27:10 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org>, Steven Miao <realmz6@gmail.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: fix shared futex operations on nommu
Message-Id: <20160426152710.e9f94f6938ff2fc13021f3ef@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160426162739.GN21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <20160426010303.GA3706@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<20160426095552.GB8295@linutronix.de>
	<20160426155344.GK21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
	<20160426161107.GF8295@linutronix.de>
	<20160426162739.GN21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:27:39 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 06:11:07PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > * Rich Felker | 2016-04-26 11:53:44 [-0400]:
> > 
> > >The whole shared futex logic is meaningless for nommu. Perhaps I
> > >should have written a better message, though.
> > >
> > >With MMU, shared futex keys need to identify the physical backing for
> > >a memory address because it may be mapped at different addresses in
> > >different processes (or even multiple times in the same process).
> > >Without MMU this cannot happen. You only have physical addresses. So
> > >the "private futex" behavior of using the virtual address as the key
> > >is always correct (for both shared and private cases) on nommu
> > >systems.
> > 
> > So using a shared futex on NOMMU does work but it would be more
> > efficient to always use a private futex instead.
> > Is this what you are saying?
> 
> No. What I'm saying is that the current code paths for shared futex
> are mmu-specific. They neither work (due to different mm internals, I
> think) nor make sense (due to lack of virtual addresses that map to
> the same physical address) on nommu.
> 
> The private futex code paths are correct for either private or shared
> futexes on nommu. This is both the natural theoretical prediction, and
> confirmed by testing the patch.

It is apparent from Sebastian's questioning that a code comment will be
needed, please.

Also, what specifically is the runtime effect of the patch?  Does the
futex code presently misbehave on NOMMU when FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG is
unset?