But the descheduling of threads if the mutex is not available is done by the
library. And especially the order of rescheduling of the threads (thats what
I'm interested in). Or am I missing something in the sys/kern/sched files (btw
I don't have the umtx file).
Regards,
Bernard
Op 19 j
In real world application such a proposed queue would work almost always, but
I'm trying to exclude all starvation situations primarily (speed is less
relevant). And although such a worker can execute it work and be scheduled
fairly, the addition of the work to the queue can result in starvation
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Bernard van Gastel wrote:
But the descheduling of threads if the mutex is not available is done
by the library. And especially the order of rescheduling of the
threads (thats what I'm interested in). Or am I missing something in
the sys/kern/sched files (btw I don't have t
Hi,
on ARM the GCC has an option for the structure size boundary:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Options.html#ARM-Options
In the GCC sources (gcc/config/arm) you see that NetBSD changes the default
value to 8 from 32.
For FreeBSD I did not found something similar. What value is used on
Bernard van Gastel writes:
> But the descheduling of threads if the mutex is not available is done
> by the library. And especially the order of rescheduling of the
> threads (thats what I'm interested in). Or am I missing something in
> the sys/kern/sched files (btw I don't have the umtx file).
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Bernard van Gastel wrote:
In real world application such a proposed queue would work almost
always, but I'm trying to exclude all starvation situations primarily
(speed is less relevant). And although such a worker can execute it
work and be scheduled fairly, the addition
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:21:56AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi Sebastian,
> on ARM the GCC has an option for the structure size boundary:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Options.html#ARM-Options
>
> In the GCC sources (gcc/config/arm) you see that NetBSD changes the defa
On Thursday 21 January 2010 11:27:23 Bernard van Gastel wrote:
> In real world application such a proposed queue would work almost always,
> but I'm trying to exclude all starvation situations primarily (speed is
> less relevant). And although such a worker can execute it work and be
> scheduled
Bernard van Gastel wrote:
But the descheduling of threads if the mutex is not available is done by the
library. And especially the order of rescheduling of the threads (thats what
I'm interested in). Or am I missing something in the sys/kern/sched files (btw
I don't have the umtx file).
Regar
On 21 Jan 2010, at 10:21, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on ARM the GCC has an option for the structure size boundary:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/ARM-Options.html#ARM-Options
>
> In the GCC sources (gcc/config/arm) you see that NetBSD changes the default
> value to 8 from 32.
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo