[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503084906.GW12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 10:49:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
boqun.feng@...il.com, luto@...capital.net, davejwatson@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux@....linux.org.uk, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>, andi@...stfloor.org,
cl@...ux.com, bmaurer@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
josh@...htriplett.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 00/14] Restartable Sequences
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:37:13PM +0000, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > Recursive locks are teh most horrible crap ever. And having the tid in
>
> What happened to providing mechanism, not policy?
>
> You can't wish away recursive locking. It's baked into Java and the CLR,
> and it's enshrined in POSIX. It's not going away, and there's no reason not
> to support it efficiently.
You can implement recursive locks just fine with a TID based word, just
keep the recursion counter external to the futex word. If owner==self,
increment etc..
> > the word allows things like kernel based optimistic spins and possibly
> > PI related things.
>
> Sure. A lot of people don't want PI though, or at least they want to opt
> into it. And we shouldn't require an entry into the kernel for what we can
> in principle do efficiently in userspace.
Any additional PI would certainly be opt-in, but the kernel based
spinning might make sense unconditionally.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists