From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] NUMA futex hashing
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:29:44 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>,
       "Shai Fultheim (Shai@scalex86.org)" <shai@scalex86.org>,
       pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@calsoftinc.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20060808070708.GA3931@localhost.localdomain> <200608081210.40334.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <200608081236.15823.ak@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200608081236.15823.ak@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608081429.44497.dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1083
Lines: 27

On Tuesday 08 August 2006 12:36, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > We may have special case for PRIVATE futexes (they dont need to be
> > chained in a global table, but a process private table)
>
> What do you mean with PRIVATE futex?
>
> Even if the futex mapping is only visible by a single MM mmap_sem is still
> needed to protect against other threads doing mmap.

Hum... I would call that a user error.

If a thread is munmap()ing the vma that contains active futexes, result is 
undefined. Same as today I think (a thread blocked in a FUTEX_WAIT should 
stay blocked)

The point is that private futexes could be managed using virtual addresses, 
and no call to find_extend_vma(), hence no mmap_sem contention.

There could be problem if the same futex (32 bits integer) could be mapped at 
different virtual addresses in the same process.

Eric
-
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/