From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
To: "Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NPTL mutex and the scheduling priority
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:39:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <448E79DA.8050704@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1150125869.3835.12.camel@frecb000686>
Sébastien Dugué a écrit :
> But maybe a better solution for condvars would be to implement
> something like a futex_requeue_pi() to handle the broadcast and
> only use PI futexes all along in glibc.
>
> Any ideas?
I'm currently thinking about it, and as far as I can see, it should be
technically feasible but not obvious.
In fact, PI-futex adds a rt-mutex behind each futex, when there are some
waiters. Each waiter is then queued two times: once in the chain list of
the hash-bucket, once in the (ordered) wait_list of the rt-mutex.
What we want, with a futex_requeue_pi, is a requeue of some tasks from
(futex1, rt_mutex1) to (futex2, rt_mutex2), respecting the wait_list
order of rt_mutex1.wait-list.
=> this needs something like a rt_mutex_requeue, and given an element of
rt_mutex1.wait_list, we need to retrieve its futex_q to requeue it to
the second hash-bucket chain (of futex2).
Moreover, we must take care of the case where the futex2 is not yet
locked (i.e. has no owner): there is not yet a pi_state nor a rt_mutex
associated with the futex2 ...
And during all of this, we must take care of several race conditions in
several places.
I'll continue my investigation, but I really wonder if futex_requeue_pi
will still be an "optimization" as it should be.
So comments from the experts are welcome ;-)
--
Pierre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-13 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-12 8:10 NPTL mutex and the scheduling priority Atsushi Nemoto
2006-06-12 12:23 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-12 12:44 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-06-12 15:24 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-06-12 16:06 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-09-07 8:11 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-09-07 8:32 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-09-07 9:30 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-09-07 9:37 ` Andreas Schwab
2006-09-07 9:42 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-06-13 8:39 ` Pierre Peiffer [this message]
2006-06-13 8:48 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-06-13 12:04 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-06-13 12:56 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-06-14 13:19 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-06-14 13:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-06-14 13:38 ` Pierre Peiffer
2006-06-15 9:28 ` Pierre Peiffer
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=448E79DA.8050704@bull.net \
--to=pierre.peiffer@bull.net \
--cc=anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.