Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #138
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads |
|---|---|
| From | Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> |
| Subject | Re: pthread question |
| 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> |
| Date | 2011-05-11 13:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <22dq98-9jj.ln1@leafnode-msgid.gclare.org.uk> (permalink) |
| Organization | Zen Internet |
Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Geoff Clare wrote: > [...] >> 9. When a running thread issues the sched_yield() function, the >> thread becomes the tail of the thread list for its priority. > > That makes sense for a uniprocessor. > > But nowadays even pocket gadgets are multiprocessors. > >> POSIX doesn't standardise internals, but it does standardise how >> threads with the above mentioned scheduling policies are scheduled. > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_09.html > > "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." Good point. However, earlier in that section the standard says: "It should be noted that the presence of multiple processors does not automatically indicate a scheduling allocation domain size greater than one. Conforming implementations on multi-processors may map all or any subset of the CPUs to one or multiple scheduling allocation domains" > 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". -- Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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