From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
drepper@redhat.com, oleg@tv-sign.ru, sebastien.dugue@bull.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] change futex_wait() to hrtimers
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:19:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070312111958.GA14573@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070312111331.GF28546@wotan.suse.de>
* Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> > even if this means more work for you (i'm sorry about that!) i'm
> > quite sure we should take Sebastien's hrtimers based implementation
> > of futex_wait(), and use the nanosleep method to restart it. There's
> > no point in further tweaking the imprecise approach: whenever some
> > timeout needs to be restarted, it's a candidate for hrtimers.
>
> Absolute timeout is needed, sure. But once that is done, hrtimers does
> not fix a bug, does it?
the issue is this: your fix reduces the effects of the bug but it is
still fundamentally incomplete because of the use of timer_list. So
instead of trying to fix the bug the wrong way, please try to fix it the
right way, ontop of an already existing and tested patch, ok? That also
enables the other neat stuff Thomas talked about.
> > until then, glibc already handles timeouts and restarts it manually.
>
> It isn't timeout handling that is buggy, but EINTR behaviour. And
> glibc does not handle that here.
hm. I'm wondering how this wasnt noticed sooner - this futex_wait
behavior has been there for like forever.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-12 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200703110814.l2B8EaI1007615@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
[not found] ` <20070312011259.3834A1801C4@magilla.sf.frob.com>
2007-03-12 9:10 ` [patch] change futex_wait() to hrtimers Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 9:16 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-12 11:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 11:13 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-12 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-03-12 11:29 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-12 11:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 11:52 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-12 12:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 12:36 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-12 11:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-03-12 11:27 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-12 11:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-03-12 10:58 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-12 11:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 11:20 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-12 11:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 14:12 ` Theodore Tso
2007-03-12 14:22 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-12 14:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-03-12 14:32 ` Nick Piggin
2007-03-15 0:03 linux
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=20070312111958.GA14573@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mm-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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