[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46509DE8.3060308@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 21:13:44 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: first little problem with private futexes
Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> On 5/20/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>> > 1. do nothing, always use the shared futexes. Not very attractive IMO
>>
>> Why do you find this non attractive ?
>>
>> How is it performance critical ?
>
> You should know better than any other that the problem is not that the
> problem itself is the only one affected. If threads terminate all
> other programs and threads are affected since the global locks for the
> shared futexes are needed. That's the case I'm concerned about. It's
> not really about a single app creating many many threads over and over
> again. It's about many apps which do use threads (and that number
> will have to rise) starts and stop threads at a reasonable rate. It's
> just one more unnecessary point of contact between concurrently
> running apps.
Well, current private futex code still use global locks (one common hash table
were all waited futexes are queued, private or shared)
'Only' mmap_sem and inode/mm refcounter inc/dec are avoided.
My proposal of having separate namespace was hold, in order to get the
'private futexes' accepted in kernel.
So for the moment, I am not sure glibc should try to optimize CLEARTID operation.
-
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