Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads
Subject: Re: pthread question
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:28:07 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <4DCBE067.143100C0@web.de>
References: <b3bf253c-0285-4eeb-8d64-e01fa16c5f0c@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <39abb345-ad69-453d-89da-29ee8e6e94f2@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <aoon98-odg.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk> <4DC95F77.DAF3CBB4@web.de> <22dq98-9jj.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk> <4DCA9ADB.4A4E28FC@web.de> <580t98-5kb.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk>
Reply-To: terekhov@web.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3e4Fotn8NP3CUoQPJwS9VQ"; logging-data="1406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sJzYk3G25MeN/Qn5OxrJJ9zGj7/rSglo="
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JiN1Ae1naWfev9zdooaPT6macR4=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.programming.threads:145


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.