From: "Pierre-Loup A. Griffais" <pgriffais@valvesoftware.com>
To: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <kernel@collabora.com>,
<krisman@collabora.com>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<ryao@gentoo.org>, <dvhart@infradead.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
<z.figura12@gmail.com>, <steven@valvesoftware.com>,
<steven@liquorix.net>, <malteskarupke@web.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:29:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <967d5047-2cb6-d6d8-6107-edb99a4c9696@valvesoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tv3aflqm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On 2/28/20 1:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:07:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> So I have a problem with this vector layout, it doesn't allow for
>>> per-futex flags, and esp. with that multi-size futex support that
>>> becomes important, but also with the already extand private/shared and
>>> wait_bitset flags this means you cannot have a vector with mixed wait
>>> types.
>>
>> Alternatively, we throw the entire single-syscall futex interface under
>> the bus and design a bunch of new syscalls that are natively vectored or
>> something.
>>
>> Thomas mentioned something like that, the problem is, ofcourse, that we
>> then want to fix a whole bunch of historical ills, and the probmem
>> becomes much bigger.
>
> We keep piling features on top of an interface and mechanism which is
> fragile as hell and horrible to maintain. Adding vectoring, multi size
> and whatever is not making it any better.
>
> There is also the long standing issue with NUMA, which we can't address
> with the current pile at all.
>
> So I'm really advocating that all involved parties sit down ASAP and
> hash out a new and less convoluted mechanism where all the magic new
> features can be addressed in a sane way so that the 'F' in Futex really
> only means Fast and not some other word starting with 'F'.
Are you specifically talking about the interface, or the mechanism
itself? Would you be OK with a new syscall that calls into the same code
as this patch? It does seem like that's what we want, so if we rewrote a
mechanism I'm not convinced it would come out any different. But, the
interface itself seems fair-game to rewrite, as the current futex
syscall is turning into an ioctl of sorts.
This solves a real problem with a real usecase; so I'd like to stay
practical and not go into deeper issues like solving NUMA support for
all of futex in the interest of users waiting at the other end. Can you
point us to your preferred approach just for the scope of what we're
trying to accomplish?
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-29 0:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-13 21:45 [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE operation André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes André Almeida
2020-02-28 19:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 19:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 21:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-29 0:29 ` Pierre-Loup A. Griffais [this message]
2020-02-29 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-03 2:47 ` Pierre-Loup A. Griffais
2020-03-03 12:00 ` 'simple' futex interface [Was: [PATCH v3 1/4] futex: Implement mechanism to wait on any of several futexes] Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-03 13:00 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-03 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-03 13:47 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-03 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-05 16:14 ` André Almeida
2020-03-05 16:25 ` Florian Weimer
2020-03-05 18:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-06 16:57 ` David Laight
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE timeout test André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE wouldblock test André Almeida
2020-02-13 21:45 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] selftests: futex: Add FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE wake up test André Almeida
2020-02-19 16:27 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Implement FUTEX_WAIT_MULTIPLE operation shuah
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=967d5047-2cb6-d6d8-6107-edb99a4c9696@valvesoftware.com \
--to=pgriffais@valvesoftware.com \
--cc=andrealmeid@collabora.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=krisman@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=malteskarupke@web.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=ryao@gentoo.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=steven@liquorix.net \
--cc=steven@valvesoftware.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=z.figura12@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).