From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753874AbcDCNS6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 3 Apr 2016 09:18:58 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:34527 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752271AbcDCNS4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 3 Apr 2016 09:18:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1604031155580.3978@nanos>
References: <20160402095108.894519835@linutronix.de> <20160402110035.753145539@linutronix.de>
 <57000D4B.5000406@kernel.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1604031155580.3978@nanos>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 06:18:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrU-SMcGuAGkJGYh-Vu9r3dcDU5hxNVO7GqWrVu1XE6oCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 4/7] futex: Add support for attached futexes
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
        Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2016 04:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> [omitted due to some Thunderbird bug, sigh]
>>
>> What happens if you mix attached an non-attached ops on the same futex?
>
> Not much. You might get an error code, sleep forever or the call will just
> result in a NOP wasting cpu cycles. That's the same when you mix
> shared/private operations on the same futex.

What's the workflow?

Can the creation of an attached futex fail due to memory allocation
problems or any other reason?  If so, how does a library make sure it
falls back to a normal futex safely?

Why can't private futexes be attached by default?

--Andy