[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Question about sched_yield()
    In message <> you write:
    > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 04:56:06 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > >On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:46:29 -0700
    > >David Schwartz <> wrote:
    > >>"The sched_yield() function shall force the running thread to relinquish
    > >>the processor until it again becomes the head of its thread list.
    > >> It takes no arguments."
    > >Notice how incredibly useless this definition is. It's even defined in
    > >terms of UP.
    > =09Huh?! This definition is beautiful in that it makes no such=
    > assumptions. How would you say this is invalid on an SMP machine? By
    > "the= processor", they mean "the process on which the thread is
    > running" (the only one= it could relinquish, after all).

    Read again: they use "relinquish ... until", not "relinquish". Subtle

    I have 32 processors and 32 threads. One does a yield(). What
    happens? What should happen?

    Given that yield is "sleep for some time but I won't tell you what I'm
    doing", I have no sympathy for yield users 8)

    Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.025 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site