Kyle Moffett wrote:
> That is a *terrible* disgusting way to use yield. Better options:
>(1) inotify/dnotify
Sure, tie yourself to a Linux-specific mechanism that may or may not work
over things like NFS. That's much worse.
>(2) create a "foo.lock" file and put the mutex in that
Kyle Moffett wrote:
That is a *terrible* disgusting way to use yield. Better options:
(1) inotify/dnotify
Sure, tie yourself to a Linux-specific mechanism that may or may not work
over things like NFS. That's much worse.
(2) create a foo.lock file and put the mutex in that
Right,
On Dec 12, 2007, at 17:39:15, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sched_yield() has been around for a decade (about three times
longer than futexes were around), so if it's useful, it sure
should have grown some 'crown jewel' app that uses it and shows
On 02/10/2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
> > > specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
> > > distro consists of in execess of 500
On 02/10/2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
distro consists of in execess of 500 millions of lines of
On Dec 12, 2007, at 17:39:15, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 02/10/2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sched_yield() has been around for a decade (about three times
longer than futexes were around), so if it's useful, it sure
should have grown some 'crown jewel' app that uses it and shows
day, i'm
> of course interested in it.
Do you still have intentions to add a directed yield API? I remember
seeing it in the earlier CFS patches.
- Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordo
"linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether or not there is a POSIX definition of sched_yield(),
> there is a need for something that will give up the CPU
> and not busy-wait. There are many control applications
> where state-machines are kept in user-mode code. The code
>
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
>>> specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
>>> distro consists of in execess of 500 millions of lines of
* David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
> > specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
> > distro consists of in execess of 500 millions of lines of code, in
> > tens of thousands of apps, so
* David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
distro consists of in execess of 500 millions of lines of code, in
tens of thousands of apps, so there really
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are generic statements, but i'm _really_ interested in the
specifics. Real, specific code that i can look at. The typical Linux
distro consists of in execess of 500 millions of lines of code, in
tens of
linux-os \(Dick Johnson\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether or not there is a POSIX definition of sched_yield(),
there is a need for something that will give up the CPU
and not busy-wait. There are many control applications
where state-machines are kept in user-mode code. The code
waits for
in it.
Do you still have intentions to add a directed yield API? I remember
seeing it in the earlier CFS patches.
- Eric
-
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
