IEEE Standards Interpretation for IEEE Std 1003.1™-1990 IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Portable Operating System Interfaces (POSIX®)
Copyright © 2001 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016-5997 USA All Rights Reserved.
Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of a standard and do not constitute an alteration to the original standard. In addition, interpretations are not intended to supply consulting information. Permission is hereby granted to download and print one copy of this document. Individuals seeking permission to reproduce and/or distribute this document in its entirety or portions of this document must contact the IEEE Standards Department for the appropriate license. Use of the information contained in this document is at your own risk.
IEEE Standards Department Copyrights and Permissions 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331, USA
Interpretation Request #113
Topic: scheduling Relevant Sections: Page 306, line 713, page 290, line 141 PASC
The phrase "moving to the tail of the scheduling queue" is not defined elsewhere in the document. Although it's intuitively obvious to _authors_ of the document, it is not precise (not legally defendable as meaning the same thing as whatever it DOES mean in a court of law, should it ever come to that). It's apparently referring to the text at P290 L141, but that to some degree is guesswork on my part. The same phrasing is not used.
Instead of "moving to the tail of the scheduling queue"... change (starting at the *): "While a thread is holding...protocol attributes *it shall not subject to the requirement that it resume execution after all other runnable processes at equal or greater priority have been scheduled to run as required by sched_setparam() and similar calls". (2 places). Also, add at 34508 (in sched_setparam): "except as specified under pthread_mutexattr_getprotocol()". It would not hurt to collect these requirements together under General Concepts and refer to them from both locations. I'll HELP draft words should that be acceptable, but I'm not expert enough in this area to do it alone. (I believe there's a start to this in the Austin Group draft.)
The standard is clear, see the definition on page 287, lines 23-27. This is also a duplicate of interpretation #100. No change is required.
Rationale for Interpretation
None. Forwarded to Interpretations group: 19 June 2000 Proposed resolution: 25 July 2000 Finalized interpretation: 29 August 2000