[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162343945.14769.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:19:05 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: akpm@...l.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, drepper@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] schedule removal of FUTEX_FD
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 15:09 -0800, akpm@...l.org wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
>
> Apparently FUTEX_FD is unfixably racy and nothing uses it (or if it does, it
> shouldn't).
>
> Add a warning printk, give any remaining users six months to migrate off it.
This makes sense. FUTEX_FD was for the NGPT project which did userspace
threading, and hence couldn't block. It was always kind of a hack
(although unfixably racy isn't quite right, it depends on usage).
However, the existence of FUTEX_FD is what made Ingo complain that we
couldn't simply pin the futex page in memory, because now a process
could pin one page per fd. Removing it would seem to indicate that we
can return to a much simpler scheme of (1) pinning a page when someone
does futex_wait, and (2) simply comparing futexes by physical address.
Now, I realize with some dismay that simplicity is no longer a futex
feature, but it might be worth considering?
Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I used to have a patch for "ratelim_printk()" which hashed on the
format string to reduce the chance that one message limit would clobber
other messages. I'll dig it out...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists