Re: [Xen-devel] Xen + futexes

[Vitaly Chernooky <vitalii.chernookyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 12:48 +0300, Vitaly Chernooky wrote:
> Hi all!
>
Hi,
>
> I have theoretical question.
>
Great, I love theoretical stuff! :-P
>
> What do you think about porting futexes or binder to XEN?
>
Ouch... That's *too* theoretical! :-)

No, really, I know a bit about futexes [0], while I know nothing about
binder (I'll investigate).

Actually, we don't even have mutexes _within_ the hypervisor, so I
struggle a bit to figure out how it would be useful to offer a similar
support to whatever is userspace for us (i.e., what futexes do, as far
as I can recall).

Yes, it is reasonable because mutexes are enough hi-level stuff. But futexes is not so hi-level ...

So, that's why I was joking/saying about this being too much
theoretical: do you have a use case in mind where something like that
can help and be useful? If yes, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

As far as we can observe sometimes in this mailing list we get RFCs for new intercommunication mechanisms. If i'm not mistaken last one was Xen Sockets. It looks like existing mechanism are not enough useful for many people. It is the reason why I started to discuss this ideas.

With best regards,

Â

Regards,
Dario

[0] http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/futex.pdf
--
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

--

Vitaly Chernooky |ÂSenior Developer - Product Engineering and Development

GlobalLogic

P +380.44.4929695 ext.1136 M +380.63.6011802ÂS cvv_2k

www.globallogic.com

http://www.globallogic.com/email_disclaimer.txt

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel