lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 11:38 -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> > But I also found that I needed to add a new yield(), to work around
> > yet another unexpected issue on this system - we have a number of
> > threads waiting on a condition variable, and the thread holding the
> > mutex signals the var, unlocks the mutex, and then immediately
> > relocks it. The expectation here is that upon unlocking the mutex,
> > the calling thread would block while some waiting thread (that just
> > got signaled) would get to run. In fact what happened is that the
> > calling thread unlocked and relocked the mutex without allowing any
> > of the waiting threads to run. In this case the only solution was
> > to insert a yield() after the mutex_unlock().
>
> That's exactly the behavior I would expect. Why would you expect
> unlocking a mutex to cause a reschedule, if the calling thread still
> has timeslice left?

That's beside the point. Folks are making an assertion that
sched_yield() is meaningless; this example demonstrates that there are
cases where sched_yield() is essential.

--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc
OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-20 23:28    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans