lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: a competition when some threads acquire futex
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:56:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Right, but even if it was a coherent patch, I'm not sure it makes sense.
>
> futex_wait() / futex_wake() don't make ordering guarantees and in
> general you don't get to have wakeup preemption if you don't run a
> PREEMPT kernel.
>
> So what makes this wakeup so special? Any changelog would need to have a
> convincing argument.

Also, even on !PREEMPT, if that wakeup sets NEED_RESCHED, the return to
userspace after futex_wake() should reschedule.


So I'm really not getting it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-06 11:07    [W:0.051 / U:2.060 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site