Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:47:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn> Subject: Re: libc_r silliness Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307081944290.7270-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030708194145.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 08-Jul-2003 Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Actually, <sched.h> is marked PS, not TPS, and the text of > > the page talks about "process": > > > > Each process is controlled by an associated scheduling policy > > and priority. Associated with each policy is a priority range. > > Each policy definition specifies the minimum priority range for > > that policy. The priority ranges for each policy may overlap > > the priority ranges of other policies. > > > > Regardless, we have kernel scheduling parameters _and_ thread > > scheduling parameters. From my interpretation, these interfaces > > refer to the process scheduling, not thread scheduling. > > This is a good link too: > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#tag_02_08_04_01 > > > > Each process shall be controlled by an associated scheduling policy > > and priority. These parameters may be specified by explicit > > application execution of the sched_setscheduler() or > > sched_setparam() functions. > > > > Each thread shall be controlled by an associated scheduling policy > > and priority. These parameters may be specified by explicit > > application execution of the pthread_setschedparam() function. > > So is X/Open OSI whoever just assuming that the process and thread > scheduling policies implement identical priority ranges? I dunno, but it seems that is the case. We could add pthread_get_priority_{min,max}_np(int policy) as non-portable functions. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10307081944290.7270-100000>