Re: futex(2) man page update help request

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Torvald Riegel wrote:

> On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 16:46 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> > <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> > >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
> > >
> > >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> > >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
> > 
> > 
> > Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to
> > the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?).
> 
> But we never guarantee a futex is a FIFO, or do we?  If we don't, then
> such a requeue could be implemented as a no-op by the kernel, which
> would sort of invalidate the use case.
> 
> (And I guess we don't want to guarantee FIFO behavior for futexes.)

The (current) behaviour is:

    real-time threads:   FIFO per priority level
    sched-other threads: FIFO independent of nice level

The wakeup is priority ordered. Highest priority level first.

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/