Re: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts

[Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com>]

On Friday 15 March 2002 11:04 am, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 10:16:02AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> > > 	Why waste a syscall?  The user is going to be using a library
> > > wrapper.  They don't have to know that futex_up() calls
> > > sys_futex(futex, FUTEX_UP, NULL);
> >
> > I agree with that, only for the reason that we are getting scarce on
> > syscall nubmers. Is 256-delta the max ?
>
> 	This was my impression, and why I called it "wasting" a syscall.
> On architectures where syscall numbers or handles are unlimited, of
> course there is no reason to keep it to one syscall.
>
> > One thing to consider is that many don't want to use libraries.
> > They want to inline, which would result only in a few instruction.
>
> 	Inlined you only take the penalty from the argument pushes.  You
> still have to go through the motions of checking whether you can
> get/release the lock in userspace.
>
> > What I would like to see is an interface that lets me pass optional
> > parameters to the syscall interface, so I can call with different number
> > of parameters.
>
> 	Is this to lock multiple futexes "atomically"?  If we are
> looking for a fast path stack-wise, this seems extra work.
>
> Joel

No, take for example...

syscall3(int,futex,int,op, struct futex*, futex, int opt_arg);

I will be always forced by the compiler (-Wall) to supply 3 arguments even 
as in the case of "no time out desired" I have to push a 3rd meaningless 
optional argument on the stack.


-- 
-- Hubertus Franke  (frankeh@watson.ibm.com)