From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul  8 16:47:01 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DF3637B401; Tue,  8 Jul 2003 16:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BC74E43F3F; Tue,  8 Jul 2003 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h68Nl0AI007658;
	Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 19:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030708194145.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307081944290.7270-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@FreeBSD.org
cc: David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn>
Subject: Re: libc_r silliness
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: deischen@FreeBSD.org
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:47:01 -0000

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