On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 12:40, Duraid Madina wrote:
> Dear Arjan,
>
>
> ///////
> // O
> // > This is a graduate
> / \__ ~ student, laboratory
> || ///// assistant, automotive
> (\ \) (~) // o <--- engineer or other
> ( \ \ / / // > unfortunate soul
> ( \ \/ / ____________/ \__O attempting to get
> ( \__/ / ___ ______\// performance out of a
> / | /@ ( / / ______)/ machine running Linux
> ( |// \ \ / / (_) by writing a simple
> \ () \ \O/ and correct
> \ | ) ) multithreaded program.
> ) ) / /
> ( |_ / /_
> (____> (____>
>
> ^
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
> This is you.
>
>
if you had spent the time you spent on this colorful graphic on reading
SUS or Posix about what sched_yield() means, you would actually have
learned something. sched_yield() means "I'm the least important thing in
the system". It's the wrong thing for cross-cpu spinlocks; futexes are
optimal for that. For letting higher priority tasks run a sleep(0) is
also far more closer to the right behavior than a sched_yield().
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:44 EST