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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans