[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2421ca75-5688-61c6-c0ac-02e55e7272a3@codeweavers.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 10:18:29 -0600
From: Zebediah Figura <zfigura@...eweavers.com>
To: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, krisman@...labora.com,
pgriffais@...vesoftware.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
malteskarupke@...tmail.fm, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
fweimer@...hat.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org,
corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/13] Add futex2 syscall
On 3/3/21 6:42 PM, André Almeida wrote:
> ** The wait on multiple problem
>
> The use case lies in the Wine implementation of the Windows NT interface
> WaitMultipleObjects. This Windows API function allows a thread to sleep
> waiting on the first of a set of event sources (mutexes, timers, signal,
> console input, etc) to signal. Considering this is a primitive
> synchronization operation for Windows applications, being able to quickly
> signal events on the producer side, and quickly go to sleep on the
> consumer side is essential for good performance of those running over Wine.
It's probably worth pointing out, for better or for worse, while this is
*a* use case, it's also limited to an out-of-tree patch set/forked
versions of Wine. I'm currently working on a different approach that
should be upstreamable to Wine proper, as detailed in [1].
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f4cc1a38-1441-62f8-47e4-0c67f5ad1d43@codeweavers.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists