Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #145

Re: pthread question

Show key headers only | View raw

Geoff Clare wrote:
[...]
> >> > "For application threads with scheduling allocation domains of size
> >> > greater than one, the rules defined for SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, [TSP] and
> >> > SCHED_SPORADIC shall be used in an implementation-defined manner."
> >> >
> >> > Translation: no rules whatsoever.
> >>
> >> The way the domain-size-one rules are applied to larger domains is
> >> "implementation-defined", which means implementations are required
> >> to document how they are applied.  Not quite the same as "no rules
> >> whatsoever".
> >
> > In praxis "implementation-defined" means undocumented to begin with.
> 
> Huh?  XBD7 section 2.1.2:
> 
>     A conformance document with the following information shall be
>     available for an implementation claiming conformance to POSIX.1-2008.
>     [...]
>     The conformance document shall describe the behavior of the
>     implementation for all implementation-defined features defined in
>     POSIX.1-2008. This requirement shall be met by listing these
>     features and providing either a specific reference to the system
>     documentation or providing full syntax and semantics of these
>     features.
> 
> > Anyway since "implementation-defined" can change from version to version
> > by even the same vendor it does mean "no rules whatsoever" in disguise.
> 
> No, it means each implementor chooses their own rules, but they must
> tell you what those rules are.  . . . 

Well, at 

http://www.opengroup.org/csq/public/search.mhtml?t=XY1&sort=bycomponent

I can't find anything regarding rules for scheduling allocation domains
of size greater than one. Do you have a link?

regards,
alexander.

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

pthread question p6 c6d6 <p6c6d6@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 21:28 -0700
  Re: pthread question Vaclav Haisman <v.haisman@sh.cvut.cz> - 2011-05-09 07:11 +0200
  Re: pthread question Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 11:49 -0700
    Re: pthread question David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-09 12:24 -0700
      Re: pthread question Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 14:22 -0700
        Re: pthread question "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-05-09 15:33 -0700
        Re: pthread question David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-10 01:22 -0700
    Re: pthread question Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-10 13:47 +0100
      Re: pthread question Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-05-10 17:53 +0200
        Re: pthread question Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-11 13:46 +0100
          Re: pthread question Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-05-11 16:19 +0200
            Re: pthread question Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-12 13:26 +0100
              Re: pthread question Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-05-12 15:28 +0200
                Re: pthread question Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-13 14:00 +0100
                Re: pthread question Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-05-13 22:59 +0200
                Re: pthread question Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2011-05-16 13:28 +0100

csiph-web