lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: futex question
    On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Anirban Sinha wrote:

    > >> 1) What caused you to instrument this path in the first place? Were you
    > >> seeing some unexpected behavior?
    > >>
    > >> 2) I wonder why we would need to clear the robust list, but I don't see other
    > >> things like pi_blocked_on, etc. in execve being cleared. I'm looking into
    > >> this now (perhaps we don't do the same cleanup, need to check).... have to get
    > >> on the plane...
    > >
    > > Hmm, just setting the robust list pointer to NULL fixes the problem at
    > > hand, but I wonder whether we need to call exit_robust_list() as
    > > well.

    > hmm. That is an interesting thought. But I wonder if acquiring a
    > lock and then exec()ing in the critical section is a legal thing to

    It's definitely legal. There is no law which forbids to do that. :)

    > do. It does not feel right. Currently, with or without my change,
    > such a thing would indefinitely block other waiters on the same
    > futex.

    Right. Which completely defeats the purpose of the robust list. Will
    have a look tomorrow.

    Thanks,

    tglx


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-04 19:05    [W:0.023 / U:0.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site