public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
Cc: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
	Christopher Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	hancockr@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:54:45 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43D88E55.7010506@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43D7F863.3080207@symas.com>

Howard Chu wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:26 -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> The SUSv3 text seems pretty clear. It says "WHEN
>>> pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, ... the scheduling policy SHALL 
>>> decide ..." It doesn't say MAY, and it doesn't say "some undefined 
>>> time after the call."      
>>
>>
>> This does NOT require pthread_mutex_unlock() to cause the scheduler to
>> immediately pick a new runnable process.  It only says it's up the the
>> scheduling POLICY what to do.  The policy could be "let the unlocking
>> thread finish its timeslice then reschedule".
>>   
> 
> 
> This is obviously some very old ground.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=etai7.108188%24B37.2381726%40news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 
> 
> 
> Kaz's post clearly interprets the POSIX spec differently from you. The 
> policy can decide *which of the waiting threads* gets the mutex, but the 
> releasing thread is totally out of the picture. For good or bad, the 
> current pthread_mutex_unlock() is not POSIX-compliant. Now then, if 
> we're forced to live with that, for efficiency's sake, that's OK, 
> assuming that valid workarounds exist, such as inserting a sched_yield() 
> after the unlock.
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/16c01eac398a1139?hl=en& 
> 
> 
> But then we have to deal with you folks' bizarre notion that 
> sched_yield() can legitimately be a no-op, which also defies the POSIX 
> spec. Again, in SUSv3 "The /sched_yield/() function shall force the 
> running thread to relinquish the processor until it again becomes the 
> head of its thread list. It takes no arguments." There is no language 

How many times have we been over this? What do you think the "head of
its thread list" might mean?

> here saying "sched_yield *may* do nothing at all." There are of course 

There is language saying SCHED_OTHER is arbitrary, including how the
thread list is implemented and how a task might become on the head of
it.

They obviously don't need to redefine exactly what sched_yield may do
under each scheduling policy, do they?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-01-26  8:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-24 22:59 e100 oops on resume Stefan Seyfried
2006-01-24 23:21 ` Mattia Dongili
2006-01-25  9:02   ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 12:11     ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 13:51       ` sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow Howard Chu
2006-01-25 14:38         ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-25 17:49         ` Christopher Friesen
2006-01-25 18:26           ` pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow) Howard Chu
2006-01-25 18:59             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-25 19:32               ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  8:51                 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 14:15                   ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-26 14:43                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 19:57                       ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26 20:27                         ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 20:46                           ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:32                             ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 21:41                               ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:56                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 22:24                                   ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-27  8:08                                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 19:25                                       ` Philipp Matthias Hahn
2006-02-01 12:31                                       ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-27  4:27                                   ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-26 21:58                               ` Christopher Friesen
2006-01-27  4:13                               ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-27  2:16                           ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27  8:19                             ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 19:50                               ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27 20:13                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 21:05                                   ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27 21:23                                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 23:31                                       ` David Schwartz
2006-01-30  8:28                         ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26 10:38                 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-30  8:35                   ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-30 11:13                     ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-31 23:18                     ` David Schwartz
2006-01-25 21:06             ` Lee Revell
2006-01-25 22:14               ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  0:16                 ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-26  0:49                   ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  1:04                     ` Lee Revell
2006-01-26  1:31                       ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  2:05                 ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26  2:48                   ` Mark Lord
2006-01-26  3:30                     ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26  3:49                       ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  4:02                         ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  4:53                           ` Lee Revell
2006-01-26  6:14                             ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  8:54                 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-01-26 14:24                   ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 14:54                     ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 15:23                       ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 15:51                         ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 16:44                           ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 17:34                             ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-26 19:00                               ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 19:14                                 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-26 21:12                                   ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:31                                     ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-27  7:06                                       ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-01-30  8:44                               ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-30  8:50                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-30 15:33                                   ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-30 13:28                                 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-30 15:15                                   ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26 10:44                 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-26  0:08             ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-26  1:07         ` sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow David Schwartz
2006-01-26  8:30           ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26  9:01             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 10:50             ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-25 19:37       ` e100 oops on resume Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-25 20:14         ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 22:28           ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-26  0:28         ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-26  9:32           ` Pavel Machek
2006-01-26 19:02           ` Stefan Seyfried
2006-01-26 19:09             ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-28 11:53             ` Mattia Dongili
2006-01-28 19:53               ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-02-07  6:57                 ` Jeff Garzik
     [not found]           ` <BAY108-DAV111F6EF46F6682FEECCC1593140@phx.gbl>
     [not found]             ` <4807377b0601271404w6dbfcff6s4de1c3f785dded9f@mail.gmail.com>
2006-01-30 17:25               ` Can I do a regular read to simulate prefetch instruction? John Smith
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-30 22:01 pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow) linux
2006-01-30 23:37 linux
2006-02-01 17:06 Lee Schermerhorn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=43D88E55.7010506@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
    --cc=hancockr@shaw.ca \
    --cc=hyc@symas.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox