From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: David Singleton <daviado@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drepper@gmail.com,
robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org
Subject: Re: Robust futex patch for Linux 2.6.15
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:27:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060113132704.207336d7.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b324b5ad0601131316m721f959eu37b741f9e5557a2e@mail.gmail.com>
David Singleton <daviado@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew and Ingo,
>
> here is a patchthat I'd like to see tested in the mm kernel. The patch
> supports robust futexes for Linux without any RT support.
> Ulrich Drepper has been asking me for a while for a patch that just has
> robustness
> in it, no RT or PI or PQ. He'd like to see it in Linux and said he'd
> support
> it in glibc if/when it gets in.
>
> This patch was originally done by Todd Kneisel for the robust-mutex SIG
> at
> OSDL. I've fixed a few bugs and added slab support.
>
> The patch is at
>
> http://source.mvista.com/~dsingleton/patch-2.6.15-robust-futex-1
>
> There are also some simple tests for robustness in the same directory
> in robust-tests.tar.gz. These simple tests test register, deregister,
> waiting,
> timed waiting, waiting for robustness from a dieing thread to wake,
> etc.
>
Please send the patch to this mailing list with a full description, as per
http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt. And by "full" I
mean something which tells us what a "robust futex" actually is (it's been
a year since I thought about them) and why we would want such a thing.
This code looks racy:
+static int futex_deadlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
+{
+ DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+
+ _raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
+ _raw_spin_unlock(¤t->pi_lock);
+
+ prepare_to_wait(&deadlocked_futex, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ schedule();
+ finish_wait(&deadlocked_futex, &wait);
+
+ return -EDEADLK;
+}
If the spin_unlocks happened after the prepare_to_wait then it would be
more idoimatic, but without having analysed the wakeup path, I wonder if a
wakeup which occurs after the spin_unlocks and before the prepare_to_wait()
will get lost.
next parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-13 21:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <b324b5ad0601131316m721f959eu37b741f9e5557a2e@mail.gmail.com>
2006-01-13 21:27 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-01-13 22:20 ` Robust futex patch for Linux 2.6.15 Andi Kleen
2006-01-13 23:01 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-14 16:13 ` Matan Peled
2006-01-14 20:25 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-16 19:09 ` Re [robust-futex-2] : interdiff for memory leak fix david singleton
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=20060113132704.207336d7.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=daviado@gmail.com \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org \
/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).