Re: [PATCH 5/5] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:55 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Also your interpretation of the POSIX requirement is very
> > questionable:
> > 
> >  "If there are threads blocked on the mutex object referenced by mutex
> >  when pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, resulting in the mutex
> >  becoming available, the scheduling policy shall determine which
> >  thread shall acquire the mutex."
> 
> The key is "scheduling policy" .. When the mutex is un-blocked the next
> task to run is the same as if the scheduler was selecting tasks from the
> list of blocked tasks .. For Linux, that means the highest priority
> tasks should be selected.. So it's no more acceptable for the scheduler
> to priority invert some tasks than it is for the futex to do it.

Sigh, when do you actually get a gripe that the default futex
implementation does not and can not guarantee that at all and therefor
your "correctness" patch is as important as a bag of rice which
toopled over in China ?

Provide answers to the real questions I asked more than once: 

What's the real world problem ? Who cares about that - except you ?

Up to the point where you are actually able to come up with that
answers please direct your replies to /dev/null. That avoids that I
have to touch my .procmailrc.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/