[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53740A30.20807@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:28:32 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, mtk.manpages@...il.com
CC: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request
On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>>
>> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
>> completely understandable: no user-space application would want to
>> directly use futex().
>
> That's actually not quite true. There are plenty of software efforts out
> there that use futex calls directly to implement userspace serialization
> mechanisms as an alternative to the bulky sysv semaphores. I worked
> closely with an in-memory DB project that makes heavy use of them. Not
> everyone can simply rely on pthreads.
>
More fundamentally, futex(2), like clone(2), are things that can be
legitimately by user space without automatically breaking all of glibc.
There are some other things where that is *not* true, because glibc
relies on being able to mediate all accesses to a kernel facility, but
not here.
-hpa
--
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