[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <edc30790-e29c-723c-50c8-61e258c6508b@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:41:07 +0300
From: Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
acme@...nel.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
corbet@....net, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>, fweimer@...hat.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, kernel@...labora.com,
krisman@...labora.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, malteskarupke@...tmail.fm,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
pgriffais@...vesoftware.com, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, shuah@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, z.figura12@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Add futex2 syscalls
On 6/8/21 4:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 04:18:42PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 6/8/21 3:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:06:48PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/21 2:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So what's keeping the futex2 code from doing all that futex1 does so
>>>>> that the futex1 code can be deleted internally?
>>>>
>>>> I think, André will answer this, but my guess is, as stated above, this is a
>>>> lot of work and time while the intermediate version is already useful.
>>>
>>> useful to who? I still do not understand what users will be needing
>>> this. All I can tell is a single userspace program wants to use it, and
>>> that is a fork from the real project it was based on and that the
>>> maintainers have no plan to merge it back.
>>>
>>> So who does need/want this?
>>
>> I mentioned C++ std::atomic and Boost.Atomic before. Those need variable
>> sized futexes.
>
> And has anyone converted them to use this new api to see if it works
> well or not?
>
> As was pointed out to me numerous times when I tried to propose
> readfile(), you need a real user that can show and prove it is needed
> before we can take new syscalls, especially complex beasts like this
> one.
André has mentioned that he tested the patch set with patched Wine and
glibc.
I didn't patch Boost.Atomic or std::atomic, but it doesn't look to be
problematic. The only difference it would make there is to enable
futex2-based implementation for multiple atomic sizes and set up flags
to indicate the futex size, instead of only enabling futex-based
implementation for 32-bit atomics.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists