From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> To: "Pierre-Loup A. Griffais" <pgriffais@valvesoftware.com>, "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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:27:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87o8thg031.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <967d5047-2cb6-d6d8-6107-edb99a4c9696@valvesoftware.com> "Pierre-Loup A. Griffais" <pgriffais@valvesoftware.com> writes: > On 2/28/20 1:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes: >>> 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. No, you are misreading what I said. How does a new syscall make any difference? It still adds new crap to a maze which is already in a state of dubious maintainability. > 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? If we go by the argument that something solves a real use case and take this as justification to proliferate existing crap, then we never get to the point where things get redesigned from ground up. Quite the contrary, we are going to duct tape it to death. It does not matter at all whether the syscall is multiplexing or split up into 5 different ones. That's a pure cosmetic exercise. While all the currently proposed extensions (multiple wait, variable size) make sense conceptually, I'm really uncomfortable to just cram them into the existing code. They create an ABI which we have to maintain forever. From experience I just know that every time we extended the futex interface we opened another can of worms which hunted us for years if not for more then a decade. Guess who has to deal with that. Surely not the people who drive by and solve their real world usecases. Just go and read the changelog history of futexes very carefully and you might understand what kind of complex beasts they are. At some point we simply have to say stop, sit down and figure out which kind of functionality we really need in order to solve real world user space problems and which of the gazillion futex (mis)features are just there as historical ballast and do not have to be supported in a new implementation, REQUEUE is just the most obvious example. I completely understand that you want to stay practical and just want to solve your particular itch, but please understand that the people who have to deal with the fallout and have dealt with it for 15+ years have very practical reasons to say no. Thanks, tglx
next prev parent reply index 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 2020-02-29 10:27 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message] 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=87o8thg031.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \ --to=tglx@linutronix.de \ --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=pgriffais@valvesoftware.com \ --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \ --cc=ryao@gentoo.org \ --cc=shuah@kernel.org \ --cc=steven@liquorix.net \ --cc=steven@valvesoftware.com \ --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
Linux-kselftest Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0 linux-kselftest/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-kselftest linux-kselftest/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest \ linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org public-inbox-index linux-kselftest Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git