From: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Dinakar Guniguntala" <dino@in.ibm.com>,
"Jean-Pierre Dion" <jean-pierre.dion@bull.net>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>, "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@redhat.com>,
"Darren Hart" <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>,
"Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 1/4] futex priority based wakeup
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:03:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A4D5FC.7060808@bull.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45A4D249.8080904@bull.net>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-10 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <45A3B330.9000104@bull.net>
2007-01-09 16:16 ` [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 1/4] futex priority based wakeup Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-09 16:29 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-01-10 11:47 ` Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-10 12:03 ` Pierre Peiffer [this message]
2007-01-10 12:54 ` Jakub Jelinek
2007-01-10 15:05 ` Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-10 18:15 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-01-11 7:20 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-01-09 17:59 ` Daniel Walker
2007-01-10 16:11 ` Daniel Walker
2007-01-10 16:29 ` Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-10 16:33 ` Daniel Walker
2007-01-09 16:16 ` [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 2/4] Make futex_wait() use an hrtimer for timeout Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-09 16:20 ` [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 3/4] futex_requeue_pi optimization Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-09 16:33 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-01-10 8:17 ` Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-10 8:24 ` Ulrich Drepper
2007-01-09 16:25 ` [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 4/4][RFC] sys_futex64 : allows 64bit futexes Pierre Peiffer
2007-01-11 21:49 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-11 22:14 ` Jakub Jelinek
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=45A4D5FC.7060808@bull.net \
--to=pierre.peiffer@bull.net \
--cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jean-pierre.dion@bull.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
/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