Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Bernard van Gastel
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

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Bernard van Gastel
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

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Daniel Eischen
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

ARM and structure size boundary

2010-01-21 Thread Sebastian Huber
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

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
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).

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Daniel Eischen
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

Re: ARM and structure size boundary

2010-01-21 Thread Olivier Houchard
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

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread Pieter de Goeje
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

Re: pthread_{mutex,cond} & fifo/starvation/scheduling policy

2010-01-21 Thread David Xu
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

Re: ARM and structure size boundary

2010-01-21 Thread Rui Paulo
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. > >