[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:0.106 / U:2.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site