Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:02:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:02:01 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:14990 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:01:56 -0400 From: David Schwartz To: , , Chris Friesen CC: , X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.61 (1025) - Licensed Version Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:01:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Question about sched_yield() Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-ID: <20020618180154.AAA21943@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 988 Lines: 24 >All I want is: when I run a bunch of >yielders and a actual working process, I want the >working process to not be slown down (wall clock) in >anyway. That's all. What top shows is of little interest >(to me). What matters is how many real world seconds it takes >for the actually working process to complete its task. >And that should not be affected by the presence of running >yielders. And, David, no one is arguing the fact that a yielder >running all by itself should log 100% of the CPU. Your assumptions are just plain wrong. The yielder is being nice, so it should get preferential treatment, not worse treatment. All threads are ready-to-run all the time. Yielding is not the same as blocking or lowering your priority. DS - 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/