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 S1757455AbcIVOs5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:48:57 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:38415 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756879AbcIVOsx (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:48:53 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:46:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes
In-Reply-To: <20160922144123.GB13358@linux-80c1.suse>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609221641540.5599@nanos>
References: <1474378963-15496-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1474378963-15496-4-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1474441172.27308.19.camel@gmail.com> <57E319BE.2050208@hpe.com> <20160922074932.GV5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609221236010.5599@nanos> <20160922144123.GB13358@linux-80c1.suse>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for
> > FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another specialized variant of futexes?
> 
> Where would this leave the respective FUTEX_WAKE? A nop? Probably have to
> differentiate the fact that the queue was empty, but there was a spinning,
> instead of straightforward returning 0.

Sorry, but I really can't parse this answer.

Can you folks please communicate with proper and coherent explanations
instead of throwing a few gnawed off bones in my direction?

Thanks,

	tglx