| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20081020225318.GA10352@ghostprotocols.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:53:18 -0200 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> To: david@...g.hm Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: sched_yield() options Em Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:34:07PM -0700, david@...g.hm escreveu: > I've seen a lot of discussion about how sched_yield is abused by > applications. I'm working with a developer on one application that looks > like it's falling into this same trap (mutexes between threads and using > sched_yield (or more precisely pthread_yield()) to let other threads get > the lock) > > however I've been having a hard time tracking down the appropriate > discussions to forward on to the developer (both for why what he's doing > is bad, and for what he should be doing instead) > > could someone point out appropriate mailing list threads, or other > documentation for this? http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Using_sched_yield_Improperly - Arnaldo -- 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