public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@in.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip PATCH v7 0/9] RFC: futex: requeue pi implementation
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:49:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49D92773.8030306@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904041035411.2884@localhost.localdomain>

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Darren,
> 
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Darren Hart wrote:
>> The following series is v7 of the requeue_pi patches against
>> linux-2.6-tip/core/futexes.  The current futex implementation doesn't allow for
>> requeueing of PI futexes, which leads to a thundering herd during
>> pthread_cond_broadcasa()t (as opposed to a civilized priority ordered wakeup
>> sequence).  The core of the problem is that the underlying rt_mutex cannot be
>> left with waiters and no owner (which would break the PI logic).  This patch
>> series updates the futex code to allow for requeueing from non-PI to PI futexes
>> in support of PI aware pthread_cond_* calls along with some needful rt_mutex
>> helper routines.  The credit for the conceptual design goes to Thomas Gleixner,
>> while the bugs and other idiocies present in this implementation should be
>> attributed to me.
> 
> I went through the patches with a fine comb again and there is nothing
> left which triggered my futex wreckage sensors. Thanks for your
> patience to go through the lather, rinse, repeat drill.
> 
> I think we are at a point where that code simply needs exposure to the
> hostile environment of RT-Java VMs. I'm going to pull that into
> tip/next and into -rt. Even if we have no requeue_pi user right now we
> definitly want to test the heck out of the changes which also affect
> the existing futex ops.
> 
> Uli, Jakub can you please go over the design and the user space
> interface ?
> 
> Darren, could you please polish the initial design notes - especially
> point out the subtle differences between requeue and requeue_pi - and
> send them into the thread? That might help Uli and Jakub and we
> definitly want to have that info preserved in Documentation/ as well.
> 

Thanks Thomas!  I'll review and update the docs (the emails you sent me 
last year along with git commit messages for these patches) and send out 
a new requeue_pi design and implementation document that we can consider 
for inclusion in Documentation/.  I'll try and have something out on Monday.

-- 
Darren Hart
IBM Linux Technology Center
Real-Time Linux Team

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-05 21:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-03 20:39 [tip PATCH v7 0/9] RFC: futex: requeue pi implementation Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:39 ` [tip PATCH v7 1/9] RFC: futex: futex_wait_queue_me() Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:39 ` [tip PATCH v7 2/9] RFC: futex: futex_top_waiter() Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:39 ` [tip PATCH v7 3/9] RFC: futex: futex_lock_pi_atomic() Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 4/9] RFC: futex: fixup_owner() Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 5/9] RFC: rt_mutex: add proxy lock routines Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 6/9] RFC: futex: Add FUTEX_HAS_TIMEOUT flag to restart.futex.flags Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 7/9] RFC: futex: Add requeue_futex() call Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 8/9] RFC: futex: add futex_wait_setup() Darren Hart
2009-04-03 20:40 ` [tip PATCH v7 9/9] RFC: futex: add requeue_pi calls Darren Hart
2009-04-05 10:01 ` [tip PATCH v7 0/9] RFC: futex: requeue pi implementation Thomas Gleixner
2009-04-05 21:49   ` Darren Hart [this message]
2009-04-06 16:29   ` Darren Hart
2009-04-07 21:33     ` Vernon Mauery
2009-04-08 22:16       ` Darren Hart

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=49D92773.8030306@us.ibm.com \
    --to=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=drepper@redhat.com \
    --cc=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sripathik@in.ibm.com \
    --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