Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964810AbWC1XJu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:09:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964819AbWC1XJu (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:09:50 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn2.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.38]:25412 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964810AbWC1XJt (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:09:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4429BCAC.80208@tmr.com> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:46:04 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Drepper CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , jakub@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.16 - futex: small optimization (?) References: <4428E7B7.8040408@bull.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 991 Lines: 23 Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On 3/27/06, Pierre PEIFFER 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 (davidsen@tmr.com) "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 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/