Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1 | Date | Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:42:19 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday 15 February 2006 18:50, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > e.g. you could add a new VMA flag that says "when one user > > of this dies unexpectedly by a signal kill all" > > "kill all"?
It would solve the problem statement given by Ingo in the rationale for this kernel patch - cleaning up after a hanging yum.
If there are any other problems this is intended to solve then they should be stated in the rationale.
> > And what happens if the patch is rejected? I don't really think you > > can force patches in this way ("do it or I break glibc") > > Nothing which relies on the syscalls goes into cvs unless the kernel > side is first committed. I never do this.
Great we agree on that then.
> The list being corrupted means that the mutexes are corrupted. In which > case the application would crash anyway.
I'm not concerned about the application, just about the kernel.
> As for the "endless loop". You didn't read the code, it seems. There > are two mechanisms to prevent this: the list is destroyed when the > individual elements are handled and there is an upper limit on the > number of robust mutexes which can be registered. The limit is > ridiculously high so it'll no problem for correct programs and it also > will eliminate run-away list following code.
Ok good that's handled. How about long blocking on swapped out pages in exit?
You would need a SO_LINGER I guess, but implementing that would be fairly nasty.
I think the "kill all" approach would be much simpler.
-Andi - 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/
| |