lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] NUMA futex hashing
    On 8/8/06, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    > Let me get this straight: to insert a contended futex into your rbtree,
    > you need to hold the mmap sem to ensure that address remains valid,
    > then you need to take a lock which protects your rbtree.

    Why does it have to remain valid? As long as the kernel doesn't crash
    on any of the operations associated with the futex syscalls let the
    address space region explode, implode, whatever. It's a bug in the
    program if the address region is changed while a futex is placed
    there. If the futex syscall hangs forever or returns with a bogus
    state (error or even success) this is perfectly acceptable. We
    shouldn't slow down correct uses just to make it possible for broken
    programs to receive a more detailed error description.
    -
    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 17:39    [W:0.020 / U:0.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site