On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > >>This patch introduces a new futex implementation called > > >>throughput-optimized (TO) futexes. > > >nit: 'TO' sounds way too much like timeout... TP? You even use 'to' as > > >shorthand for timeout in the next patch. > > > > I agree. I am not that satisfied with the TO name. So I will change it to TP > > in my next revision of the patch. Thanks for the suggestion. > > I'd leave out the TO part entirely (or only mention it in changelogs). > > That is, I'd call the futex ops: FUTEX_LOCK and FUTEX_UNLOCK. That brings me to a different question: How is user space going to support this, i.e. is this some extra magic for code which implements its own locking primitives or is there going to be a wide use via e.g. glibc. Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another specialized variant of futexes? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
