lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Shared futexes (was [PATCH] FUTEX : new PRIVATE futexes)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>some thoughts on shared futexes;
>>
>>Could we get rid of the mmap_sem on the shared futexes in the following
>>manner:

I'd imagine shared futexes would be much less common than private for
threaded programs... I'd say we should reevaluate things once we have
private futexes, and malloc/free stop hammering mmap_sem so hard...

>> - get a page using pfn_to_page (skipping VM_PFNMAP)
>> - get the futex key from page->mapping->host and page->index
>> and offset from addr % PAGE_SIZE.
>>
>>or given a key:
>>
>> - lookup the page from key.shared.inode->i_mapping by key.shared.pgoff
>> possibly loading the page using mapping->a_ops->readpage().

For shared futexes, wouldn't i_mapping be worse, because you'd be
ping-ponging the tree_lock between processes, rather than have each
use their own mmap_sem?

That also only helps for the wakeup case too, doesn't it? You have
to use the vmas to find out which inode to use to do the wait, I think?
(unless you introduce a new shared futex API).

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-06 15:19    [W:0.228 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site