On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:49:35 -0700 "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > BTW, it looks like risky to criticise sched_yield too much: some > > > people can misinterpret such discussions and stop using this at > > > all, even where it's right. > > > Really, i have never seen a _single_ mainstream app where the use of > > sched_yield() was the right choice. > > It can occasionally be an optimization. You may have a case where you > can do something very efficiently if a lock is not held, but you > cannot afford to wait for the lock to be released. So you check the > lock, if it's held, you yield and then check again. If that fails, > you do it the less optimal way (for example, dispatching it to a > thread that *can* afford to wait). at this point it's "use a futex" instead; once you're doing system calls you might as well use the right one for what you're trying to achieve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
