[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56718607.2080600@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:40:55 +0100
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
bill o gallmeister <bgallmeister@...il.com>,
bert hubert <bert.hubert@...herlabs.nl>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@....de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@...hat.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: futex(3) man page, final draft for pre-release review
Hi David,
On 12/15/2015 11:41 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
>> When executing a futex operation that requests to block a thread,
>> the kernel will block only if the futex word has the value that
>> the calling thread supplied (as one of the arguments of the
>> futex() call) as the expected value of the futex word. The load???
>> ing of the futex word's value, the comparison of that value with
>> the expected value, and the actual blocking will happen atomi???
>>
>> FIXME: for next line, it would be good to have an explanation of
>> "totally ordered" somewhere around here.
>>
>> cally and totally ordered with respect to concurrently executing
>> futex operations on the same futex word.
>
> So there are two things here regarding ordering. One is the most obvious
> which is ordered due to the taking/dropping the hb spinlock. Secondly, its
> the cases which Peter brought up a while ago that involves atomic futex ops
> futex_atomic_*(), which do not have clearly defined semantics, and you get
> inconsistencies with certain archs (tile being the worst iirc).
>
> But anyway, the important thing users need to know about is that the atomic
> futex operation must be totally ordered wrt any other user tasks that are trying
> to access that address. This is not necessarily the case for kernel ops. Peter
> illustrates this nicely with lock stealing example;
> (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/596).
Thanks. I reworded things here a little.
> Internally, I believe we decided that making it fully ordered (as opposed to
> making use of implicit barriers for ACQUIRE/RELEASE), so you'd endup having
> an MB ll/sc MB kind of setup.
>
> [...]
>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <errno.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <sys/wait.h>
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>> #include <sys/syscall.h>
>> #include <linux/futex.h>
>> #include <sys/time.h>
>>
>> #define errExit(msg) do { perror(msg); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); \
>> } while (0)
>
> Nit, but for this we have err(3).
I don't much like them though (not in POSIX).
Thanks for the help David.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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