Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206110951380.2712-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri
> te:
>
>>Rusty,
>> this makes no sense:
>>
>>D: This changes the implementation so that the waker actually unpins
>>D: the page. This is preparation for the async interface, where the
>>D: process which registered interest is not in the kernel.
>>
>>Whazzup? The closing of the fd will unpin the page, the waker has no
>>reason to do so. It is very much against the linux philosophy (and a
>>design disaster anyway) to have the waker muck with the data structures of
>>anything waiting.
>>
>
> Good catch: now the fd is a "one-shot" thing anyway, making close
> unpin the page makes more sense. Tested patch below (against 2.5.21).
>
> FYI: I already violate this philosophy as I remove the waiter from the
> queue when I wake them: this allows them to tell that they were woken
> (waker does a list_del_init() on the waiting entry, so waiting knows
> if (list_empty()) I was woken).
>
> It would be more natural for the waiter to examine the futex value,
> and if it's still unchanged go back to sleep. But this makes
> assumptions about what they're using the futex value for. For
> example, we "PASS_THIS_DIRECTLY" value into the futex. This requires
> that one (and ONLY one) process waiting actually wakes up.
>
> This is why coming up with a primitive which allowed us to build posix
> threads and fair queueing as well as "normal" unfair semantics took so
> damn long.
>
What are the plans on how to deal with a waiter when the lock holder
dies abnormally?
What about sending a signal (SIGTRAP or SIGLOST), returning -1 and
setting errno to a reasonable value (EIO?)
I couldn't find anything in susv3
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:25 EST