On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:47:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > FUTEX_WAIT (since Linux 2.6.0) > This operation tests that the value at the futex word pointed to > by the address uaddr still contains the expected value val, and > if so, then sleeps awaiting FUTEX_WAKE on the futex word. The > load of the value of the futex word is an atomic memory access > (i.e., using atomic machine instructions of the respective > architecture). This load, the comparison with the expected > value, and starting to sleep are performed atomically and > totally ordered with respect to other futex operations on the > same futex word. If the thread starts to sleep, it is consid‐ > ered a waiter on this futex word. If the futex value does not > match val, then the call fails immediately with the error > EAGAIN. > > The purpose of the comparison with the expected value is to pre‐ > vent lost wake-ups: If another thread changed the value of the > futex word after the calling thread decided to block based on > the prior value, and if the other thread executed a FUTEX_WAKE > operation (or similar wake-up) after the value change and before > this FUTEX_WAIT operation, then the latter will observe the > value change and will not start to sleep. > > If the timeout argument is non-NULL, its contents specify a rel‐ > ative timeout for the wait, measured according to the > CLOCK_MONOTONIC clock. (This interval will be rounded up to the > system clock granularity, and kernel scheduling delays mean that > the blocking interval may overrun by a small amount.) If time‐ > out is NULL, the call blocks indefinitely. Would it not be better to only state that the wait will not return before the timeout -- unless woken -- and not bother with clock granularity and scheduling delays? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
