Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)

Ulrich Drepper wrote:

On 3/27/06, Pierre PEIFFER <[email protected]> wrote:

I found a (optimization ?) problem in the futexes, during a futex_wake,
  if the waiter has a higher priority than the waker.

There are no such situations anymore in an optimal userlevel
implementation.  The last problem (in pthread_cond_signal) was fixed
by the addition of FUTEX_WAKE_OP.  The userlevel code you're looking
at is simply not optimized for the modern kernels.

What are you suggesting here, that the kernel can be inefficient as long as the user has a way to program around it?

--
   -bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

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

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)
    • From: Pierre PEIFFER <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)
    • From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: hda-intel woes
• Next by Date: Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.16
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]