On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 01:14:17PM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
> > sys_futex_wait(void *uaddr, u64 val, unsigned long flags, ktime_t *timo);
> > struct futex_wait {
> > void *uaddr;
> > u64 val;
> > u64 flags;
> > };
> > sys_futex_waitv(struct futex_wait *waiters, unsigned int nr_waiters,
> > u64 flags, ktime_t *timo);
> > sys_futex_wake(void *uaddr, unsigned int nr, u64 flags);
> > sys_futex_cmp_requeue(void *uaddr1, void *uaddr2, unsigned int nr_wake,
> > unsigned int nr_requeue, u64 cmpval, unsigned long flags);
> >
> > And that makes 7 arguments for cmp_requeue, which can't be. Maybe we if
> > combine nr_wake and nr_requeue in one as 2 u16... ?
> >
> > And then we need to go detector if the platform supports it or not..
> >
>
> Thanks everyone for the feedback around our mechanism. Are the
> performance benefits of implementing a syscall to wait on a single futex
> significant enough to maintain it instead of just using
> `sys_futex_waitv()` with `nr_waiters = 1`? If we join both cases in a
> single interface, we may even add a new member for NUMA hint in `struct
> futex_wait`.
My consideration was that avoiding the get_user/copy_from_user might
become measurable on !PTI systems with SMAP.
But someone would have to build it and measure it before we can be sure
of course.
