[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/1] schedule removal of FUTEX_FD
    On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:19:05 +1100
    Rusty Russell <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 15:09 -0800, wrote:
    > > From: Andrew Morton <>
    > >
    > > Apparently FUTEX_FD is unfixably racy and nothing uses it (or if it does, it
    > > shouldn't).
    > >
    > > Add a warning printk, give any remaining users six months to migrate off it.
    > This makes sense. FUTEX_FD was for the NGPT project which did userspace
    > threading, and hence couldn't block. It was always kind of a hack
    > (although unfixably racy isn't quite right, it depends on usage).
    > However, the existence of FUTEX_FD is what made Ingo complain that we
    > couldn't simply pin the futex page in memory, because now a process
    > could pin one page per fd. Removing it would seem to indicate that we
    > can return to a much simpler scheme of (1) pinning a page when someone
    > does futex_wait, and (2) simply comparing futexes by physical address.
    > Now, I realize with some dismay that simplicity is no longer a futex
    > feature, but it might be worth considering?

    Sure. Perhaps we could accelerate the removal schedule if we want to do
    this. Let's see how many 2.6.19 users squeak first.

    > Cheers,
    > Rusty.
    > PS. I used to have a patch for "ratelim_printk()" which hashed on the
    > format string to reduce the chance that one message limit would clobber
    > other messages. I'll dig it out...

    I think the caller-provided-state thing will work OK?
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-01 02:27    [W:0.020 / U:42.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site