Re: futex(2) man page update help request

[Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)]

Hello Darren,

On 01/17/2015 08:26 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
> On 1/17/15, 1:16 AM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

>>>> In the meantime, I have a couple of questions, which, if
>>>> you could answer them, I would work some changes into the
>>>> page before sending.
>>>>
>>>> 1. In various places, distinction is made between non-PI
>>>>   futexs and PI futexes. But what determines that distinction?
>>>>   From the kernel's perspective, hat make a futex one type
>>>>   or another? I presume it is to do with the types of blocking
>>>>   waiters on the futex, but it would be good to have a formal
>>>>   definition.
>>>
>>> You're right in that a uaddr is a uaddr is a uaddr. Also "there is no
>>> such
>>> thing as a futex", it doesn't exist as any kind of identifiable object,
>>> so
>>> these discussions can get rather confusing :-)
>>
>> So, I want to make sure that I am clear on what you mean you say this.
>> You say "there is no such thing as a futex" because from the kernel's
>> perspective there is no visible entity in the uncontended case
>> (where everything can be dealt with in user space). And from user-space,
>> in the uncontended case all we're doing is memory operations. Right?
>>
>> On the other hand, from a kernel perspective, we could say that a
>> futex "exists" in the contended phases, since the kernel has allocated
>> state associated with the uaddr. Right?
> 
> 
> Sorry, this was more anecdotal, and probably more of a distraction than
> constructive. I just meant that unlike other things which you can point to
> a specific struct for (task, rt_mutex, etc.), a "futex" has it's state
> distributed across the backing store (uaddr), the queue (futex_q), the
> pi_state, the rt_mutex, etc, and these span kernel space and userspace.
> Your description above is correct.

Okay. Thanks. I've added a few more words to the page noting that
the kernel maintains no state for a futex in the uncontended state.

>>> A "futex" becomes a PI futex when it is "created" via a PI futex op
>>> code.
>>
>> Precisely which PI op codes? Is it: FUTEX_LOCK_PI, FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI, and
>> FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI, and not FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI or FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI?
> 
> Based on your wording below about taking a user POV on this, I'm going to
> say "yes" here. These opcodes paired with the PI futex value policy
> (described below) defines a "futex" as PI aware. These were created very
> specifically in support of PI pthread_mutexes, so it makes a lot more
> sense to talk about a PI aware pthread_mutex, than a PI aware futex, since
> there is a lot of policy and scaffolding that has to be built up around it
> to use it properly (this is what a PI pthread_mutex is).

See below.

>>> At that point, the syscall will ensure a pi_state is populated for the
>>> futex_q entry. See futex_lock_pi() for example. Before the locks are
>>> taken, there is a call to refill_pi_state_cache() which preps a pi_state
>>> for assignment later in futex_lock_pi_atomic(). This pi_state provides
>>> the
>>> necessary linkage to perform the priority boosting in the event of a
>>> priority inversion. This is handled externally from the futexes via the
>>> rt_mutex construct.
>>>
>>> Clear as mud?
>>
>> Not quite that bad, but... The thing is, still, the man page has text
>> such as the following (based on your wording):
>>
>>       FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI (since Linux 2.6.31)
>>              This operation is a PI-aware variant of FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE.
>>              It    requeues    waiters    that    are    blocked    via
>>              FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI  on uaddr from a non-PI source futex
>>              (uaddr) to a PI target futex (uaddr2).
>>
>> And elsewhere you said
>>
>>    EINVAL is returned if the non-pi to pi or
>>    op pairing semantics are violated.
>>
>> When someone in user-land (e.g., me) reads pieces like that, they then
>> want to find somewhere in the man page a description of what makes a
>> futex a *PI futex* and probably some statements of the distinction
>> between PI and non-PI futexes. And those statements should be from a
>> perspective that is somewhat comprehensible to user-space. I'm not
>> yet confident that I can do that. Do you care to take a shot at it?
> 
> Hrm, tricky indeed. From userspace, what makes a "futex" PI is the policy
> agreement between kernel and userspace (which is the value of the futex:
> 0, TID, TID|WAITERS, and never just WAITERS, and the use of PI aware futex
> op codes when making the futex syscalls.

Okay -- I've attempted to capture this in some text that I added to the 
page.

> For a longer discussion of this policy, see Documentation/pi-futex.txt.

Sad to say, that document doesn't supply that much more detail, in
my reading of it, at least.

> Also note that this policy can be combined with that for robust futexes,
> adding the OWNERDIED component.

Now there's two other stories that have yet to be dealt with ;-). 

I have a FIXME already in the page regarding OWNERDIED, and
get_robust_list(2) is another page that seems like it could do with 
a fair bit of work, but that's a story for another day.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/