[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface
Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <> you wr
> ite:
>>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Peter W=E4chtler wrote:
>>>For the uncontended case: their is no blocked process...
>>The process that holds the lock can die _before_ it gets contended.
>>When another thread comes in, it now is contended, but the kernel doesn't
>>know about anything.
> Note also: this is a feature.
> I have a little helper program which can grab or release a futex in a
> (mmapped) file. It's great for shell scripts to grab locks. In this
> case the helper exits with the lock held, and a later invocation
> releases a lock it never held.
> *AND* the lock is persistent across reboots, since it's in a file.
> How cool is that!

Don't want to bugg you: but you would have to clean them up in any case
when you restart your system of cooperating programs.

Posix shmem would be a nice place to store your mmaped file so that it's
gone after reboot - but gives "kernel life time".

And not that I want to put the futexes down: but now I understand why
the PROCESS_SHARED locks on Irix live in the kernel. Yes, perhaps we
should provide both and the app can choose what suits best.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.885 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site