lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: futex(2) man page update help request
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Torvald Riegel wrote:

> On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 16:46 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> > <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> > >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
> > >
> > >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> > >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
> >
> >
> > Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to
> > the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?).
>
> But we never guarantee a futex is a FIFO, or do we? If we don't, then
> such a requeue could be implemented as a no-op by the kernel, which
> would sort of invalidate the use case.
>
> (And I guess we don't want to guarantee FIFO behavior for futexes.)

The (current) behaviour is:

real-time threads: FIFO per priority level
sched-other threads: FIFO independent of nice level

The wakeup is priority ordered. Highest priority level first.

Thanks,

tglx





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-24 11:21    [W:0.139 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site