lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups
From
Date

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 00:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Also your interpretation of the POSIX requirement is very
> > > questionable:
> > >
> > > "If there are threads blocked on the mutex object referenced by mutex
> > > when pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, resulting in the mutex
> > > becoming available, the scheduling policy shall determine which
> > > thread shall acquire the mutex."
> >
> > The key is "scheduling policy" .. When the mutex is un-blocked the next
> > task to run is the same as if the scheduler was selecting tasks from the
> > list of blocked tasks .. For Linux, that means the highest priority
> > tasks should be selected.. So it's no more acceptable for the scheduler
> > to priority invert some tasks than it is for the futex to do it.
>
> Sigh, when do you actually get a gripe that the default futex
> implementation does not and can not guarantee that at all and therefor
> your "correctness" patch is as important as a bag of rice which
> toopled over in China ?

Well, the last email I got from Arjan said this,

".. Don't look at the release path... look at the acquire path.
If a thread sees the futex is free, it'll take it, without even going
to the kernel at all."

And yes, I understand that fully.

> Provide answers to the real questions I asked more than once:
>
> What's the real world problem ? Who cares about that - except you ?

Any application which starts a thread, and later changes the priority
can observe the miss-ordering.. That's pretty common..

Daniel



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-13 01:09    [W:0.049 / U:2.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site