[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: Thread starvation with mutex



> From: Ulrich Drepper [mailto:drepper redhat com]
> Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> 
> > To me it reads like it is not optional, unless there is an inconsistency,
> > they have changed it in the patches, corregidendums or whatever the name is.
> > Where does it say is optional?
> 
> Because scheduling policies are optional.  There is no requirement to
> support it, especially not together with threads.

So? They are not saying that you have to support it, but that whatever
you have as an scheduling policy has to determine who runs next. And if
you have threads, you have some sort of sched policy (even if your POSIX
implementation doesn't deal with it).

Time for a beer; have a nice weekend 

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]