[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] NUMA futex hashing
    On Tuesday 08 August 2006 12:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
    > > We may have special case for PRIVATE futexes (they dont need to be
    > > chained in a global table, but a process private table)
    > What do you mean with PRIVATE futex?
    > Even if the futex mapping is only visible by a single MM mmap_sem is still
    > needed to protect against other threads doing mmap.

    Hum... I would call that a user error.

    If a thread is munmap()ing the vma that contains active futexes, result is
    undefined. Same as today I think (a thread blocked in a FUTEX_WAIT should
    stay blocked)

    The point is that private futexes could be managed using virtual addresses,
    and no call to find_extend_vma(), hence no mmap_sem contention.

    There could be problem if the same futex (32 bits integer) could be mapped at
    different virtual addresses in the same process.

    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: 2006-08-08 14:33    [W:0.021 / U:5.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site