[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45A4D5FC.7060808@bull.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:03:08 +0100
From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
Jean-Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 1/4] futex priority based wakeup
Pierre Peiffer a écrit :
> Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
>>
>> I have never seen performance numbers for this. If it is punishing
>> existing code in a measurable way I think it's not anacceptable default
>> behavior.
> May be, supposing it makes sense to respect the priority order only for
> real-time pthreads, I can register all SCHED_OTHER threads to the same
> MAX_RT_PRIO priotity ?
Moreover, the performance must be considered, sure, but after all, "man
pthread_cond_broadcast" says:
<<
If more than one thread is blocked on a condition variable, the
scheduling policy shall determine the order in which threads are
unblocked.
>>
... this is not true today ...
(of course, "shall" does not mean "mandatory", I know ;-) )
--
Pierre
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists