Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1194773
| From | Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Next round: revised futex(2) man page for review |
| Date | 2015-07-29 04:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pRoYF-2B2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pQPoe-16W-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pRjFE-39y-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pRjYZ-3vU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 22:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Also, this code seems to use plist, which means it won't do the right > thing for SCHED_DEADLINE either. Ick, I don't look forward to seeing nice futex plists converted into rbtrees. As opposed to, eg. rtmutexes, there are a few caveats: - Dealing with the top_waiter in rtmutexes is always easy, but in futexes we need to deal with keys, so caching the leftmost won't work as nicely. - This will bloat things like futex_wake, where O(logN) is not suited for FIFO iteration. And iterating linked lists is, in essence, all that we really do when calling futex(2). I have to wonder about the extra overhead added by these points. I do understand the dl concern, nonetheless. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Next round: revised futex(2) man page for review Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-28 22:50 +0200 Re: Next round: revised futex(2) man page for review Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-07-28 23:10 +0200 Re: Next round: revised futex(2) man page for review Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2015-07-29 04:10 +0200
csiph-web