[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150416101637.GC5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:16:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
fredrik.markstrom@...driver.com,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] futex: avoid double wake up in futex_wake() on -RT
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:19:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So any code which does not handle a spurious wakeup is broken
> independent of the futex changes. So really nothing to worry about.
Back when we did this:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1109.1/01941.html
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1109.1/01943.html
Things came apart -- notably sysvsems.
And yes its true that anything not dealing with spuriuos wakups is
borken, but there's still quite a lot of borken out there, although I
think we fixed all the really common ones.
But if we decide we want to go do this, I'd propose we reintroduce this
delayed wake list thing again.
--
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