From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "john stultz" <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Sripathi Kodi" <sripathik@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] fix faulting bomb in futex_unlock_pi64
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:20:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a36005b50705311020w45094035uae4b63091d60ab7d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1180579953.21781.34.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On 5/30/07, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> But, the -rt kernel has pretty much the same code for the
> futex_unlock_pi64, and it has the same bug.
Why would you use futex_unlock_pi64?
In fact, the whole 64-bit futex patch should be reviewed and cut down
to the bare minimum. I know, I was asking for it loudly but it became
to Jakub and me after adding the private futexes that all these
orthogonal extensions don't make sense. So far we need 64-bit futexes
only for some rwlocks and here only a few operations (wait, wake). We
don't need 64-bit extended to PI, we don't need requeue.
Yes, if we had started out with 64-bit futexes on 64-bit platforms,
that would be fine. But as it is today making 64-bit a new dimension
is not needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-31 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-31 0:49 [BUG] futex_unlock_pi() hurts my brain and may cause application deadlock john stultz
2007-05-31 1:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-05-31 14:53 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-05-31 2:52 ` [PATCH RT] fix faulting bomb in futex_unlock_pi64 Steven Rostedt
2007-05-31 3:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-05-31 17:20 ` Ulrich Drepper [this message]
2007-05-31 14:24 ` [BUG] futex_unlock_pi() hurts my brain and may cause application deadlock Ingo Molnar
2007-05-31 14:50 ` john stultz
2007-05-31 14:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-31 16:48 ` john stultz
2007-07-31 23:53 ` [RESEND] " john stultz
2007-08-01 0:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-08-01 1:41 ` David Miller
2007-08-06 7:20 ` Ingo Molnar
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=a36005b50705311020w45094035uae4b63091d60ab7d@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
--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®