lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Robust futex patch for Linux 2.6.15
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please send the patch to this mailing list with a full description, as per
> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt. And by "full" I
> mean something which tells us what a "robust futex" actually is (it's been
> a year since I thought about them) and why we would want such a thing.
>
> This code looks racy:
>
> +static int futex_deadlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
> +{
> + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> + _raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> + _raw_spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);
> +
> + prepare_to_wait(&deadlocked_futex, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule();
> + finish_wait(&deadlocked_futex, &wait);
> +
> + return -EDEADLK;
> +}
>
> If the spin_unlocks happened after the prepare_to_wait then it would be
> more idoimatic, but without having analysed the wakeup path, I wonder if a
> wakeup which occurs after the spin_unlocks and before the prepare_to_wait()
> will get lost.

Andrew, I'm looking at this:

http://source.mvista.com/~dsingleton/robust-futex-1

And it doesn't seem to have a futex_deadlock function at all. In fact, its seems
to have a rather lengthy description about robust futexes and why they're a Good
Thing(TM).

What are you looking at?

--
[Name ] :: [Matan I. Peled ]
[Location ] :: [Israel ]
[Public Key] :: [0xD6F42CA5 ]
[Keyserver ] :: [keyserver.kjsl.com]
encrypted/signed plain text preferred

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-14 17:16    [W:0.998 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site