From: Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Peter Wächtler" <pwaechtler@loewe-komp.de>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: furwocks: Fast Userspace Read/Write Locks
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:41:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020307144006.B9D213FE06@smtp.linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E16iwkE-000216-00@wagner.rustcorp.com.au> <3C875FD1.4040904@loewe-komp.de>
In-Reply-To: <3C875FD1.4040904@loewe-komp.de>
On Thursday 07 March 2002 07:40 am, Peter Wächtler wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This is a userspace implementation of rwlocks on top of futexes.
>
> With the futex approach in mind: Does anybody think it's desirable to have
>
> pthread_cond_wait/signal and pthread_mutex_* with inter process scope build
> into the kernel as system call?
>
Yes, I talked with Bill Abt from IBM's NPthreads package about it in
December. Huge value as it would provide full POSIX compliants.
There are differences whether you have a 1:1 threading model or
a M:N threading model.
Eitherway this could be implemented using futexes.
M:N is surely more tricky. The problem is that the calling process/kernel
thread can not be blocked but has to return to user level to continue another
user level thread. What needs to happen is something like a signaling
mechanism.
> The only issue I see so far, is that libpthread should get a "reserved"
> namespace entry ( /dev/shm/.linuxthreads-locks ?) to hold all the
> PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARE locks/condvars.
>
> OTOH Irix seems to implement inter process locks as syscall, so that the
> kernel does all the bookkeeping. That approach denies a malicious program
> to trash all locks in the system...
>
> Hmh, then we could implement a per user /dev/shm/.linuxthreads-lock-<uid>
> with tight permissions?
>
> What do you think?
--
-- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-07 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-07 12:11 furwocks: Fast Userspace Read/Write Locks Rusty Russell
2002-03-07 12:40 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-03-07 14:41 ` Hubertus Franke [this message]
2002-03-07 12:50 ` Arjan van de Ven
2002-03-07 15:33 ` Hubertus Franke
2002-03-07 15:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2002-03-07 19:11 ` Hubertus Franke
2002-03-07 20:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-03-08 6:27 ` Rusty Russell
2002-03-08 6:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-03-08 7:09 ` Rusty Russell
2002-03-08 19:32 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-03-08 1:22 ` Rusty Russell
2002-03-08 3:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-03-08 9:21 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-03-08 18:13 ` Hubertus Franke
2002-03-09 4:50 ` Rusty Russell
2002-03-11 18:47 ` Hubertus Franke
2002-03-07 15:28 ` Hubertus Franke
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=20020307144006.B9D213FE06@smtp.linux.ibm.com \
--to=frankeh@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=pwaechtler@loewe-komp.de \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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