> + * Make sure the child gets the SCHED_YIELD flag cleared, even if
> + * it inherited it, to avoid deadlocks.
can anyone think of a reason that SCHED_YIELD *should* be inherited?
I think it's just oversight that fork doesn't clear it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 05.01 Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> > >
> > > OK works here ...
> >
> > Me too.
> >
> > Perhaps this reschedules ok in UP but kinda fails in SMP...
>
> Great. And see Andrea's SCHED_YIELD explanation in the "sluggish"
> mail thread. Well, I didn't
On 05.01 Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
OK works here ...
Me too.
Perhaps this reschedules ok in UP but kinda fails in SMP...
Great. And see Andrea's SCHED_YIELD explanation in the sluggish
mail thread. Well, I didn't try to understand it
+ * Make sure the child gets the SCHED_YIELD flag cleared, even if
+ * it inherited it, to avoid deadlocks.
can anyone think of a reason that SCHED_YIELD *should* be inherited?
I think it's just oversight that fork doesn't clear it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
4 matches
Mail list logo
