From: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@parrot.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Subject: Re: futex: Allow FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME with FUTEX_WAIT op
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:53:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160623195346.GC106079@f23x64.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8b6775b1-efee-beec-0ba8-136183742ca3@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 08:35:15PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> On 06/23/2016 06:16 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > > On 06/23/2016 09:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Once upon a time, you told me the following:
> > > >
> > > > On 15 May 2014 at 16:14, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 15 May 2014, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > > > > And that universe would love to have your documentation of
> > > > > > FUTEX_WAKE_BITSET and FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET ;-),
> > > > >
> > > > > I give you almost the full treatment, but I leave REQUEUE_PI to Darren
> > > > > and FUTEX_WAKE_OP to Jakub. :)
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME
> > > > >
> > > > > This option bit can be ored on the futex ops FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET
> > > > > and FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI
> > > > >
> > > > > If set the kernel treats the user space supplied timeout as
> > > > > absolute time based on CLOCK_REALTIME.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not set the kernel treats the user space supplied timeout
> > > > > as relative time.
> > > > Unfortunately, I should have checked the code more carefully...
> > >
> > > Me too :)
> >
> > Seems to be going around...
> >
> > >
> > > > Looking more carefully at the code, I see understand the situation
> > > > is the following:
> > > >
> > > > FUTEX_LOCK_PI
> > > > Always uses CLOCK_REALTIME
> > > > 'timeout' is absolute
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI
> > > > Choice of clock (CLOCK_REALTIME vs CLOCK_MONOTONIC) is
> > > > determined by presence or absence of
> > > > FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME flag
> > > > 'timeout' is absolute
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET
> > > > Choice of clock (CLOCK_REALTIME vs CLOCK_MONOTONIC) is
> > > > determined by presence or absence of
> > > > FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME flag
> > > > 'timeout' is absolute
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > FUTEX_WAIT
> > > > Choice of clock (CLOCK_REALTIME vs CLOCK_MONOTONIC) is
> > > > determined by presence or absence of
> > > > FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME flag
> > > > 'timeout' is relative
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > I've amended the man page to describe those details.
> >
> > OK, that confirms my question, timeout interpretation as relative or absolute is
> > based on the op code, not the CLOCK flag.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The flag was explicitely added to allow FUTEX_WAIT to hand in absolute time.
> > > >
> > > > When you say that the "flag was added", which flag do you mean? Or, did you
> > > > mean: "applying Matthieu's patch will allow FUTEX_WAIT to hand in absolute
> > > > time".
> > >
> > > I didn't express myself clearly. When Darren added the support for
> > > CLOCK_REALTIME to FUTEX_WAIT I think he wanted to add absolute timeout
> > > support. Anything else does not make sense.
> >
> > I sent that patch because reading the new man page it struck me as strange that
> > FUTEX_WAIT was restricted to CLOCK_MONOTONIC and the other op codes were not,
> > especially since FUTEX_WAIT is a just FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET with the mask set to
> > ALL.
> >
> > I didn't realize the impact to relative/absolute interpretation of the timeout
> > value at the time.
> >
> > I think it was a mistake to introduce a change that made FUTEX_WAIT interpret
> > the timeout differently based on the CLOCK flag,
>
> I'm missing something. Where does it do that? As far as I can tell FUTEX_WAIT
> always interprets the clock as relative, regardless of presence/absence of
> FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME? Am I missing something?
No you're not. The code as it stands today is always relative, but it gets the
base time from the wrong clock source in the case of FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME.
I was stating that I think it would be a mistake to add absolute timeout to
FUTEX_WAIT based on the FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME flag, which is how Thomas describes
above his interpretation of my earlier change.
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 19:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-20 14:26 Matthieu CASTET
2016-06-23 4:48 ` Darren Hart
2016-06-23 7:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 10:52 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-06-23 13:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 16:16 ` Darren Hart
2016-06-23 17:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 18:28 ` Darren Hart
2016-06-23 18:41 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-06-23 19:55 ` Darren Hart
2016-06-23 20:31 ` Darren Hart
[not found] ` <d8bcb621-012e-f34c-4cf9-2d09aa23a43c@gmail.com>
2016-06-24 9:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-24 10:00 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-07-06 18:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 18:35 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-06-23 19:53 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2016-06-24 8:13 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-06-23 10:53 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160623195346.GC106079@f23x64.localdomain \
--to=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthieu.castet@parrot.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®