Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Add futex2 syscalls

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	"André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>,
	acme@kernel.org,
	"Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	corbet@lwn.net, "Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	"Darren Hart" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	fweimer@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, kernel@collabora.com,
	krisman@collabora.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, malteskarupke@fastmail.fm,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	pgriffais@valvesoftware.com, "Peter Oskolkov" <posk@posk.io>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	shuah@kernel.org, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	z.figura12@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] Add futex2 syscalls
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 14:33:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YL9jpvHQG2wsVTsn@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fa8b7fd-58ae-9467-138d-4ff4f32f68f7@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:06:48PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 6/8/21 2:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:03:50PM +0300, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > > On 6/8/21 4:25 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Are shared pthread mutexes using existing pthread APIs that are today
> > > > implemented okay with futex1 system call a good reason to constrain
> > > > futex2 I wonder? Or do we have an opportunity to make a bigger change
> > > > to the API so it suffers less from non deterministic latency (for
> > > > example)?
> > > 
> > > If futex2 is not able to cover futex1 use cases then it cannot be viewed as
> > > a replacement. In the long term this means futex1 cannot be deprecated and
> > > has to be maintained. My impression was that futex1 was basically
> > > unmaintainable(*) and futex2 was an evolution of futex1 so that users of
> > > futex1 could migrate relatively easily and futex1 eventually removed. Maybe
> > > my impression was wrong, but I would like to see futex2 as a replacement and
> > > extension of futex1, so the latter can be deprecated at some point.
> > 
> > You can never delete a kernel system call, so even if you "deprecate"
> > it, it still needs to be supported for forever.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, some syscalls were dropped from kernel in the past,
> after it was established they are no longer used. So it is not impossible,
> though might be more difficult specifically with futex.

Those syscalls were all "compatible with other obsolete operating
system" syscalls from what I remember.  You can still run binaries
built in 1995 just fine on your system today (I have a few around here
somewhere...)

Thinking that you can drop futex() in the next 10+ years is very wishful
thinking given just how slow userspace applications are ever updated,
sorry.

greg k-h