Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1619205
| From | Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH -v6 12/13] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism |
| Date | 2017-04-08 03:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ttNmp-76Q-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tnM01-11I-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tnM02-11I-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:59AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The problem with returning -EAGAIN when the waiter state mismatches is > that it becomes very hard to proof a bounded execution time on the prove > operation. And seeing that this is a RT operation, this is somewhat an RT > important. > > While in practise; given the previous patch; it will be very unlikely Heh, that's not what semicolons are for ;-) Commas here, or a parenthetical. > to ever really take more than one or two rounds, proving so becomes > rather hard. > > However, now that modifying wait_list is done while holding both > hb->lock and wait_lock, we can avoid the scenario entirely if we > acquire wait_lock while still holding hb-lock. Doing a hand-over, > without leaving a hole. Nice :) -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH -v6 12/13] futex: futex_unlock_pi() determinism Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2017-04-08 03:30 +0200
csiph-web