![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 12:36, Andi Kleen wrote: > > We may have special case for PRIVATE futexes (they dont need to be > > chained in a global table, but a process private table) > > What do you mean with PRIVATE futex? > > Even if the futex mapping is only visible by a single MM mmap_sem is still > needed to protect against other threads doing mmap. Hum... I would call that a user error. If a thread is munmap()ing the vma that contains active futexes, result is undefined. Same as today I think (a thread blocked in a FUTEX_WAIT should stay blocked) The point is that private futexes could be managed using virtual addresses, and no call to find_extend_vma(), hence no mmap_sem contention. There could be problem if the same futex (32 bits integer) could be mapped at different virtual addresses in the same process. Eric - 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: 2006-08-08 14:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||