Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754750AbYJTWxd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:53:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753360AbYJTWxY (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:53:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34352 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751934AbYJTWxX (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:53:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:53:18 -0200 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: david@lang.hm Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: sched_yield() options Message-ID: <20081020225318.GA10352@ghostprotocols.net> Mail-Followup-To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , david@lang.hm, linux-kernel References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/blog User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 992 Lines: 22 Em Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:34:07PM -0700, david@lang.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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/