[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Johannes Stezenbach <> wrote:
> > Anyway: If a process can trash its robust futext list and then die
> > with a segfault, why are the futexes still robust? In this case the
> > kernel has no way to wake up waiters with FUTEX_OWNER_DEAD, or does
> > it?
> that's memory corruption - which robust futexes do not (and cannot)
> solve. Robustness is mostly about handling sudden death (e.g. which is
> due to oom, or is due to a user killing the task, or due to the
> application crashing in some non-memory-corrupting way), but it cannot
> handle all possible failure modes.

Hm, OK, from reading this and the other threads on this
topic I get:

- there is a tradeoff between speed and robustness
- the focus for "robust futexes" is on speed
(else they wouldn't deserve to be called futexes)
- thus it is acceptable if they are just 99% robust

That's OK, but IMHO it wouldn't hurt to clearly spell
it out in the documentation.

However, this leaves the question: Is there a slower, but 100% robust
alternative on Linux for applications which need it?

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: 2006-02-17 20:58    [W:0.062 / U:15.408 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site