[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0910041853180.2646@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:59:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Anirban Sinha <ani@...rban.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@...gmasystems.com>,
Anirban Sinha <asinha@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: futex question
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Anirban Sinha wrote:
> >> 1) What caused you to instrument this path in the first place? Were you
> >> seeing some unexpected behavior?
> >>
> >> 2) I wonder why we would need to clear the robust list, but I don't see other
> >> things like pi_blocked_on, etc. in execve being cleared. I'm looking into
> >> this now (perhaps we don't do the same cleanup, need to check).... have to get
> >> on the plane...
> >
> > Hmm, just setting the robust list pointer to NULL fixes the problem at
> > hand, but I wonder whether we need to call exit_robust_list() as
> > well.
> hmm. That is an interesting thought. But I wonder if acquiring a
> lock and then exec()ing in the critical section is a legal thing to
It's definitely legal. There is no law which forbids to do that. :)
> do. It does not feel right. Currently, with or without my change,
> such a thing would indefinitely block other waiters on the same
> futex.
Right. Which completely defeats the purpose of the robust list. Will
have a look tomorrow.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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