Re: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> E.g. in David Singleton's robust-futex-6.patch, there are 3 new syscall 
> variants to sys_futex(): FUTEX_REGISTER, FUTEX_DEREGISTER and 
> FUTEX_RECOVER. The kernel attaches such robust futexes to vmas (via 
> vma->vm_file->f_mapping->robust_head), and at do_exit() time, all vmas 
> are searched to see whether they have a robust_head set.

hm.   What happened if the futex was in anonymous memory (vm_file==NULL)?

> New approach to robust futexes
> ------------------------------
> 
> At the heart of this new approach there is a per-thread private list of 
> robust locks that userspace is holding (maintained by glibc) - which 
> userspace list is registered with the kernel via a new syscall [this 
> registration happens at most once per thread lifetime]. At do_exit() 
> time, the kernel checks this user-space list: are there any robust futex 
> locks to be cleaned up?

Neat.

> 
> ...
> The list is guaranteed to be private and per-thread, so it's lockless. 
>

Why is that guaranteed??  Another thread could be scribbling on it while
the kernel is walking it?

Why use a list and not just a sparse array? (realloc() works..)

>
> There is one race possible though: since adding to and removing from the 
> list is done after the futex is acquired by glibc, there is a few 
> instructions window for the thread (or process) to die there, leaving 
> the futex hung. To protect against this possibility, userspace (glibc) 
> also maintains a simple per-thread 'list_op_pending' field, to allow the 
> kernel to clean up if the thread dies after acquiring the lock, but just 
> before it could have added itself to the list. Glibc sets this 
> list_op_pending field before it tries to acquire the futex, and clears 
> it after the list-add (or list-remove) has finished.

Oh.  I'm surprised that glibc cannot just add the futex to the list prior
to acquiring it, then the exit-time code can work out whether the futex was
really taken-and-contended.  Even if the kernel makes a mistake it either
won't find a futex there or it won't wake anyone up.


I think the patch breaks the build if CONFIG_FUTEX=n?

The patches are misordered - with only the first patch applied, the kernel
won't build.  That's a nasty little landmine for git-bisect users.

Why do we need sys_get_robust_list(other task)?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/