Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 30 March,1998
1003.1c-95 #19 _____________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation Number: XXXX Topic: sched_setparam Relevant Sections: 13.3.3.2 Interpretation Request: (Defect Report) ----------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 16:05:54 -0700 From: "Scott J. Norton" <sjn@hpwssjn.cup.hp.com> Section 13.3.1.2, page 114 D10, lines 30-36 Section 13.3.3.2, page 114 D10, lines 42-48 According to the new rules for scheduling, the sched_setparam() and sched_setscheduler() are not useless in the presence of multithreaded applications. The only effect these functions have is on the child process (from fork()) of the target process. An implementation may cause something to happen to the process scope threads, but thats all. This provides a huge hole for system administrators. These functions have a process parameter. This means they were intended so that a process could control the policy and priority of another process. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been a pid as a parameter. Up until now a system administrator could control a process if it was getting too much or too little time on the system. Runaway processes with high priority could be habndled. With the new behavior, there is no way a sysadmin (or any process) can control the behavior of a multithreaded process. If some event happens requiring a change in the policy/priority of the MT process, only the process itself can do it. The worst part is that if one thread in the process goes out of control while high prio SCHED_FIFO, no one can control it. A sysadmin cannot do anything to lower that thread's priority (thread IDs are not guaranteed to be known outside of the system). Is this the actual intended behavior? Interpretation response ------------------------ This is a duplicate. See PASC P1003.1c Interpretation #3, part 7 Rationale ------------- None. Forwarded to Interpretations group: July 17th 1996 Finalised: Sep 4 1996