From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934338AbcIVNgm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:36:42 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:38081 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933619AbcIVNgj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:36:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:34:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] futex: Throughput-optimized (TO) futexes
In-Reply-To: <20160922074932.GV5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609221236010.5599@nanos>
References: <1474378963-15496-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1474378963-15496-4-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com> <1474441172.27308.19.camel@gmail.com> <57E319BE.2050208@hpe.com> <20160922074932.GV5008@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > >>This patch introduces a new futex implementation called
> > >>throughput-optimized (TO) futexes.
> > >nit: 'TO' sounds way too much like timeout... TP?  You even use 'to' as
> > >shorthand for timeout in the next patch.
> > 
> > I agree. I am not that satisfied with the TO name. So I will change it to TP
> > in my next revision of the patch. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs).
> 
> That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK.

That brings me to a different question:

How is user space going to support this, i.e. is this some extra magic for
code which implements its own locking primitives or is there going to be a
wide use via e.g. glibc.

Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for
FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another specialized variant of futexes?

Thanks,

	tglx