![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Schwartz wrote: > Third, there's the ambiguity of the standard. It says the "sceduling >policy" shall decide, not that the scheduler shall decide. If the policy is >to make a conditional or delayed decision, that is still perfectly valid >policy. "Whichever thread requests it first" is a valid scheduler policy. > > Sure. And with a "whichever thread aquires it first" policy, then it is obvious what happens when a mutex is released when someone is blocked on it: Whoever blocked on it first is then the one who requested it first - that cannot change as the request was made before the mutex even was released. So then, the releasing thread has no chance of getting the mutex back until the others have had a go at it - no matter what threads actually gets scheduled. Helge Hafting - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-30 08:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||