Às 13:20 de 18/08/21, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 01:00:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct futex_waitv - A waiter for vectorized wait
>>> + * @val: Expected value at uaddr
>>> + * @uaddr: User address to wait on
>>> + * @flags: Flags for this waiter
>>> + */
>>> +struct futex_waitv {
>>> + __u64 val;
>>
>> Again. Why u64?
>
> So I think the idea was that if we're going to do new syscalls, we
> should cater for future extentions, one of which was 64bit futexes (for
> 64bit archs) (along with u{8,16,32})
>
> The previous set of patches implemented a more complete replacement ABI
> -- which I rather liked, however the implementation was completely
> disjoint from the existing futexes, which was a non-starter for me.
>
> Anyway, yes, current futexes are u32, but if we want to ever do u64
> futexes, we should either do this syscall with a u64, or already plan to
> retire the whole syscall.
>
> Obiously this would've made good Changelog material, but alas it wasn't
> there.
>
Ops, I forgot to add the reasoning behind the 64 futexes. The idea is
that futex users want to be able to properly do 64bit atomic operations
on top of futex values:
[0]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFTs51XAr2b3DmcSM4=qeU5cNuh0mTxUbhG66U6bc63YYzkzYA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210603195924.361327-1-andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m37bfbbd6ac76c121941defd1daea774389552674
[2] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2021/05/251508.php
