Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:15:13 -0400 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: robust futexes Message-ID: <20080430121513.33f9452b@kan.dnsalias.net> In-Reply-To: <20080430081806.GA81772@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:18:06 +0200 Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> wrote: > hi > > I implemented robust futexes in linuxulator and I need to get it > reviewed/tested. The best way to test it is (according to linux > documnetation) to run yum and kill -9 it while it runs. > > The patch is here: > http://www.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/linux_robust_futex.patch > > the patch should be ok as I followed linux code very closely (most of > the code runs in userspace so kernel has very well defined work). I > tested it lightly on i386. > > I'd like to commit this quite soon so please help. > > thnx! > > roman Hi, some comments: linux_emul.c: @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ em = malloc(sizeof *em, M_LINUX, M_WAITOK | M_ZERO); em->pid = child; em->pdeath_signal = 0; + em->robust_futexes = NULL; M_ZERO is not quite zero enough? :) linux_futex.c in release_futexes: + head = em->robust_futexes; + + if (fetch_robust_entry(&entry, &head->list.next, &pi)) + return; Aren't you taking a fault in copyin unconditionally if em->robust_mutexes happens to be NULL? Why not check is for NULL first? Also, is sched_relinguish really necessary after each each futex recovery _except_ from the 'pending' futex one? i386/conf/GENERIC: Does not belong in this patch, probably included in by mistake. -- Alexander Kabaev [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFIGJsRQ6z1jMm+XZYRAoi3AJ41OmXtruMzZkjWq0hilw/1tfQpiwCgjNF0 Nnb/0RgrsIZstavXc/cajNE= =0rK3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080430121513.33f9452b>