Message-ID: <43F5F87E.4030307@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:23:26 -0800
From: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Robust futexes
References: <1140152271.25078.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1140152271.25078.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1205
Lines: 29

Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi Ingo, all,
> 
> 	Noticed (via LWN, hence the delay) your robust futex work.  Have you
> considered the less-perfect, but simpler option of simply having futex
> calls which tell the kernel that the u32 value is in fact the holder's
> TID?
> 
> 	In this case, you don't get perfect robustness when TID wrap occurs:
> the kernel won't know that the lock holder is dead.  However, it's
> simple, and telling the kernel that the lock is the tid allows the
> kernel to do prio inheritence etc. in future.

Priority Inheritance has come up a couple of times in relation to Ingo's new 
LightWeight Robust Futexes.  Ingo has said that PI is orthogonal to LWRF, but I 
don't think we've heard if there are plans already in the works (or in his head 
:-) for PI.  Rusty's comment above reads as "the current LWRF implementation 
cannot support PI" - is there something about it that makes PI impractical to 
implement?

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
-
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/