[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:0.042 / U:3.592 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site