[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: setitimer vs. threads: SIGALRM returned to which thread? (process master or individual child)
    "Frantisek Rysanek" <> writes:

    > Yes, it used to be quite a relief to have Linux do the management of
    > timers for me. Now I have two options to choose from:
    > 1) write my own "timer queueing" (timekeeping) code to order the
    > timers for me in the master thread
    > 2) find another function, similar to setitimer(), that would function
    > the way setitimer() used to work in the old days...

    POSIX timers (timer_create allow specifying the signal.

    So if you use custom RT signals for each threads and block them in the
    threads you don't want them it should work. This would limit the
    maximum number of threads though because there's only a limited
    range of RT signals.

    There are probably other ways to do this too, e.g. with some clever
    use of timerfd_create in recent kernels.

    Or you could overwrite the clone in the thread library to not
    set signal sharing semantics. This might have other bad side effects


    -- -- Speaking for myself only.

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-11 22:59    [W:0.019 / U:2.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site