From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: futex(2) man page update help request
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:58:07 +0100
Message-ID: <1422104287.29655.13.camel@triegel.csb>
References: <537346E5.4050407@gmail.com>
	 <CF98E3EF.90564%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
	 <CAKgNAkh+PWzT2SByaLk_OtiAXeZSkWoMgu+ivDOt1dTWVtaatQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5373D0CA.2050204@redhat.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405150121230.6261@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
	 <CAKgNAkjQ5Dd_U9OojXdgeforpRevvPHNFAw99kBFPCwHgf7Ggg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1405151144390.6261@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
	 <54B7D87C.3090901@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501152313330.5526@nanos>
	 <54B92B71.2090509@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501161618080.5526@nanos>
	 <54B97A72.2050205@gmail.com>  <D0DEECA2.B7EAD%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
	 <1422037145.27573.0.camel@triegel.csb>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501241102450.5526@nanos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501241102450.5526@nanos>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, bill o gallmeister <bgallmeister@gmail.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:05 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 16:46 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> > > <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> > > >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
> > > >
> > > >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> > > >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to
> > > the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?).
> > 
> > But we never guarantee a futex is a FIFO, or do we?  If we don't, then
> > such a requeue could be implemented as a no-op by the kernel, which
> > would sort of invalidate the use case.
> > 
> > (And I guess we don't want to guarantee FIFO behavior for futexes.)
> 
> The (current) behaviour is:
> 
>     real-time threads:   FIFO per priority level
>     sched-other threads: FIFO independent of nice level
> 
> The wakeup is priority ordered. Highest priority level first.

OK.

But, just to be clear, do I correctly understand that you do not want to
guarantee FIFO behavior in the specified futex semantics?  I think there
are cases where being able to *rely* on FIFO (now and on all future
kernels) would be helpful for users (e.g., on POSIX/C++11 condvars and I
assume in other ordered-wakeup cases too) -- but at the same time, this
would constrain future futex implementations.