From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Futex: Revert the non-functional REQUEUE_PI
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:58:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46766552.3080803@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1182107470.8176.455.camel@chaos>
Thomas Gleixner wrote :
> Patch d0aa7a70bf03b9de9e995ab272293be1f7937822 titled
>
> "futex_requeue_pi optimization"
>
> introduced user space visible changes to the futex syscall.
>
> The patch is non-functional and there is no way to fix it proper before
> the 2.6.22 release.
>
> The breakage report ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/12/17 ) went
> unanswered,
Sorry, but I passed lot of time on this last year without any answers or
comments from the community when I have sent my patches.
Now I'm working on something else and I can't spent more time on this for now...
Futexes are so complex that it is always difficult to investigate a problem in
only one or two hours...
> and unfortunately it turned out that the concept is not
> feasible at all.
Without robust futex, the concept works well, and the performance gain has been
proven.
It violates the rtmutex semantics badly by introducing
> a virtual owner, which hacks around the coupling of the user-space
> pi_futex and the kernel internal rt_mutex representation.
What you call a hack, is for me a design point. And if this is a hack, then I
think that we can say that futexes are based on a series of hacks...
But, okay, this is not very constructive, so...
Ulrich Drepper wrote :
>
> Indeed. A lot more discussion is needed to handle this correctly. No
> committed code in glibc so far uses the function so removal is no problem.
Once again, it's a pity that people didn't spent time to comment on this when I
was working on this.
Now, the work will probably just be lost...
--
Pierre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-18 10:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-17 19:11 Thomas Gleixner
2007-06-17 19:21 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-06-18 10:58 ` Pierre Peiffer [this message]
2007-06-18 14:12 ` Ulrich Drepper
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=46766552.3080803@bull.net \
--to=pierre.peiffer@bull.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome