On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Darren Hart wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > .\" FIXME XXX ===== Start of adapted Hart/Guniguntala text ===== > > .\" The following text is drawn from the Hart/Guniguntala paper > > .\" (listed in SEE ALSO), but I have reworded some pieces > > .\" significantly. Please check it. > > > > The PI futex operations described below differ from the other > > futex operations in that they impose policy on the use of the > > value of the futex word: > > > > * If the lock is not acquired, the futex word's value shall be > > 0. > > > > * If the lock is acquired, the futex word's value shall be the > > thread ID (TID; see gettid(2)) of the owning thread. > > > > * If the lock is owned and there are threads contending for the > > lock, then the FUTEX_WAITERS bit shall be set in the futex > > word's value; in other words, this value is: > > > > FUTEX_WAITERS | TID > > > > > > Note that a PI futex word never just has the value FUTEX_WAITERS, > > which is a permissible state for non-PI futexes. > > The second clause is inappropriate. I don't know if that was yours or > mine, but non-PI futexes do not have a kernel defined value policy, so > ==FUTEX_WAITERS cannot be a "permissible state" as any value is > permissible for non-PI futexes, and none have a kernel defined state. Depends. If the regular futex is configured as robust, then we have a kernel defined value policy as well. > > .\" FIXME I'm not quite clear on the meaning of the following sentence. > > .\" Is this trying to say that while blocked in a > > .\" FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI, it could happen that another > > .\" task does a FUTEX_WAKE on uaddr that simply causes > > .\" a normal wake, with the result that the FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI > > .\" does not complete? What happens then to the FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI > > .\" opertion? Does it remain blocked, or does it unblock > > .\" In which case, what does user space see? > > > > The > > waiter can be removed from the wait on uaddr via > > FUTEX_WAKE without requeueing on uaddr2. > > Userspace should see the task wake and continue executing. This would > effectively be a cancelation operation - which I didn't think was > supported. Thomas? We probably never intended to support it, but looking at the code it works (did not try it though). It returns to user space with -EWOULDBLOCK. So it basically behaves like any other spurious wakeup. Thanks, tglx -- 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
