From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
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 20:41:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1dab560-41bb-9cc4-438f-0ade82c685fd@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160623182821.GB106079@f23x64.localdomain>
On 06/23/2016 08:28 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:26:52PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> In my opinion, we should treat the timeout value as relative for FUTEX_WAIT
>>> regardless of the CLOCK used.
>>
>> Which requires even more changes as you have to select which clock you are
>> using for adding the base time.
>
> Right, something like the following?
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> index 33664f7..c39d807 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -3230,8 +3230,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(futex, u32 __user *, uaddr, int, op, u32, val,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> t = timespec_to_ktime(ts);
> - if (cmd == FUTEX_WAIT)
> - t = ktime_add_safe(ktime_get(), t);
> + if (cmd == FUTEX_WAIT) {
> + if (cmd & FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME)
> + t = ktime_add_safe(ktime_get_real(), t);
> + else
> + t = ktime_add_safe(ktime_get(), t);
> + }
> tp = &t;
> }
> /*
Just in the interests of readability/maintainability, might it not
make some sense to recode the timeout handling for FUTEX_WAIT
within futex_wait(). I think that part of the reason we're in this
mess of inconsistency is that timeout interpretation is being handled
at too many different points in the code.
> And as a follow-on, what is the reason for FUTEX_LOCK_PI only using
> CLOCK_REALTIME? It seems reasonable to me that a user may want to wait a
> specific amount of time, regardless of wall time.
Yes, that's another weird inconsistency.
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 18:41 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) [this message]
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
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=f1dab560-41bb-9cc4-438f-0ade82c685fd@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthieu.castet@parrot.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®