Re: NPTL mutex and the scheduling priority

[Sébastien Dugué]

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 04:48 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 05:24:28PM +0200, S?bastien Dugu? wrote:
> >   The patch you refer to is at
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114725326712391&w=2
> > 
> >   But maybe a better solution for condvars would be to implement
> > something like a futex_requeue_pi() to handle the broadcast and
> > only use PI futexes all along in glibc.
> 
> FUTEX_REQUEUE certainly should be able to requeue from normal futex
> to a PI futex or vice versa, I don't think it is desirable to create
> a separate futex cmds for that.

  Indeed, that would be preferable but might get tricky.

> Now not sure what do you mean by "use PI futexes all along in glibc",
> certainly you don't mean using them for normal mutexes, right? 
> FUTEX_LOCK_PI has effects the normal futexes shouldn't have.
> The condvars can be also used with PP mutexes and using PI for the cv
> internal lock unconditionally wouldn't be the right thing either.

  I effectively meant using a PI futex for the cv __data.__futex but now
I realize it's a Really Bad Idea.

  To summarize (correct me if I'm wrong), we need a way in the broadcast
case to promote the cv __data.__futex type to the type of the external
mutex (PI, PP, normal) in the requeue path. Therefore we need the
ability to requeue waiters on a regular futex onto a PI futex.

  Ingo, Thomas, is this feasible?

  Sébastien.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/