[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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.
    Director, Highland Sun
    OpenLDAP Core Team

    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: 2005-08-20 23:28    [W:0.019 / U:6.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site