[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484CF1FB.804@aitel.hist.no>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:03:55 +0200
From: Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
To: Jakub Jozwicki <jozwicki@...er.pl>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
Subject: Re: sched_yield() on 2.6.25
Jakub Jozwicki wrote:
> From the man sched_yield:
>
> A process can relinquish the processor voluntarily without blocking by
> calling sched_yield(). The process will then be moved to the end of the
> queue for its static priority and a new process gets to run.
>
> and also IEEE/Open Group:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/sched_yield.html
>
>
>>> pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
>>> th = pthread_self();
>>> if (pthread_equal(th,last_th)) {
>>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
>>> sched_yield();
>>> continue;
>>>
>
> Here with SCHED_OTHER sched_yield for the first 100-200 times does nothing.
> Should the man be updated?
>
Having the man page mention the fact that that sched_yield() probably
won't do "what you intend" in the non-realtime cases is probably a
good idea;
that way we get fewer application programmers who mistakenly think
that sched_yield can be used for their purposes. And then we'll have
less broken apps.
A pointer to info about what they might want to use instead is even better.
Helge Hafting
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists