Hi, Mutex and semaphores does not ensure synchronization of threads in terms of order of execution. Mutexes (Mutual exclusion locks) prevent multiple threads from simultaneously executing critical sections of code which access shared data. Semaphores are similar to mutexes and can be considered as multiple mutex which also do not guarantee/control the order of execution of threads. As I stated earlier you should use "conditional variables along with mutexes" to solve this problem. This is the only way to achieve ordering of threads if you are using pthreads.
Regards Prabhat -----Original Message----- From: Raja Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:49 PM To: multiple recipients of Subject: Re: [ilugd]: order of execution of threads On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 13:15, Lalit Kumar Bhasin wrote: > Hi, > > Using Linux threads / pthreads, is there any way of controlling the order of thread execution. > Suppose u have T1,T2,T3. The order should be (say), > > T1T2T1T2T1T2T3T1T2T1T2T1T2T1T2T3...... > > Dont tell me thru the 'condition' variable, as it does not controls the order, which is the prerogative of the scheduler. > Use locks such as mutexes or semaphores ================================================ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header. Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org ================================================ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header. Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
