On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:31:45PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > For instance, an application could create a linked list or hash map > of thread control structures, which could contain the current CPU > number of each thread. A dispatch thread could then traverse or > lookup this structure to see on which CPU each thread is running and > do work queue dispatch or scheduling decisions accordingly. So, what happens if the linked list is walked from thread X, and we discover that thread Y is allegedly running on CPU1. We decide that we want to dispatch some work on that thread due to it being on CPU1, so we send an event to thread Y. Thread Y becomes runnable, and the scheduler decides to schedule the thread on CPU3 instead of CPU1. My point is that the above idea is inherently racy. The only case where it isn't racy is when thread Y is bound to CPU1, and so can't move - but then you'd know that thread Y is on CPU1 and there wouldn't be a need for the inherent complexity suggested above. The behaviour I've seen on ARM from the scheduler (on a quad CPU platform, observing the system activity with top reporting the last CPU number used by each thread) is that threads often migrate between CPUs - especially in the case of (eg) one or two threads running in a quad-CPU system. Given that, I'm really not sure what the use of reading and making decisions on the current CPU number would be within a program - unless the thread is bound to a particular CPU or group of CPUs, it seems that you can't rely on being on the reported CPU by the time the system call returns. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
