[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: deferred cancellation of ipc
From: |
Volkmar Uhlig |
Subject: |
RE: deferred cancellation of ipc |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:00:35 -0700 |
After reading your initial scenario again there is a rather simple
solution--use zero timeouts. Instead of storing the cancel flag you
store the intended send timeout value, which could be zero. Of course
you still run into a race on MP if you don't use some synchronization
primitive, but that is a different issue you have to deal with anyway.
This solution assumes that you _only_ want to ensure that the thread
does not block.
> Or does maybe stopping a thread on another CPU count as
> preemption and is also delayed?
Sorry, but I don't get what you mean. What is "stopping"; exregs?
- Volkmar
- deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/13
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Niels Möller, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Niels Möller, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Niels Möller, 2003/10/14
- RE: deferred cancellation of ipc, Volkmar Uhlig, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- RE: deferred cancellation of ipc,
Volkmar Uhlig <=
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Stefan Götz, 2003/10/15
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/15
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Niels Möller, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14
- Re: deferred cancellation of ipc, Marcus Brinkmann, 2003/10/14