From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rseq: defer time slice extension yield for sys_futex_wake
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 09:45:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c8453a19-3487-4031-8153-22e1b1cd2b69@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831-sys-futex-wake-time-slice-v1-1-814bb95cc339@google.com>
On 2026-08-31 08:57, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> When a task is granted an rseq scheduler time slice extension, it is
> expected to finish its critical section and relinquish the CPU via
> rseq_slice_yield(2). If the task issues any other system call while a
> grant is active, rseq_syscall_enter_work() forces an immediate
> reschedule on syscall entry via cond_resched(). This may cause
> significant latency penalty for userspace lock implementations that use
> rseq time slice extensions when unlocking the futex.
>
> In a userspace mutex unlock sequence:
> 1. The lock is released in userspace.
> 2. If there are waiters, the unlocking thread calls sys_futex_wake()
> to wake a sleeping waiter.
>
> Because sys_futex_wake() is currently treated as an arbitrary syscall,
> rseq_syscall_enter_work() schedules out the unlocking thread upon
> syscall entry, which is before it has executed the wakeup. Consequently,
> the lock is free in userspace, but the waiter remains blocked in the
> kernel while the CPU switches to an unrelated task. The waiter is only
> woken when the unlocking thread is eventually scheduled back in to
> finish the syscall, causing lock handoff delays.
>
> Thus, update rseq_syscall_enter_work() for sys_futex_wake() so that it
> does not reschedule during syscall entry. The thread will yield the CPU
> on the syscall exit path instead.
>
> There is no need to apply this optimization to the multiplexed futex()
> syscall since any userspace code that can invoke rseq_slice_yield() can
> also invoke futex_wake().
Is the goal there to provide a single blessed way of doing futex wake,
or to allow the futex multiplexer to keep being used for that wake
scenario ?
The proposed change exposes two ABIs (multiplexer vs explicit futex
wake) with very different behaviors. I'm concerned that it would be
confusing to users.
Thoughts ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 12:57 [PATCH] rseq: defer time slice extension yield for sys_futex_wake Alice Ryhl
2026-08-31 13:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2026-08-31 14:12 ` Alice Ryhl
2026-09-01 11:49 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-09-01 20:27 ` Alice Ryhl
2026-09-04 5:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-09-04 13:53 ` [PATCH] rseq: defer time slice extension yield for sys_futex_wakey Dmitry Ilvokhin
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=c8453a19-3487-4031-8153-22e1b1cd2b69@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox