Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:31:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:31:50 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:37101 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:31:50 -0400 From: David Schwartz To: , , Chris Friesen CC: , X-Mailer: PocoMail 2.61 (1025) - Licensed Version Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:31:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020618184424.00ab6418@whisper.qrpff.net> Subject: Re: Question about sched_yield() Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-ID: <20020620203148.AAA10409@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1040 Lines: 29 On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:45:55 -0400, Stevie O wrote: >At 11:00 AM 6/18/2002 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: >>This is the same error repeated again. Since you realize that an endless >>loop on sched_yield is *not* equivalent to blocking, why do you then say >>"in >>fact doing useful work"? By what form of ESP is the kernel supposed to >>determine that the sched_yield task is not 'doing useful work' and the >>other >>task is? >By this form of ESP: sched_yield() means "I have nothing better to do right >now, give my time to someone who does". If a thread is doing useful work, >why would it call sched_yield() ?!? To give other threads a chance to do useful work too, perhaps because it just released a mutex that other threads might need that it held for an unusually long time. 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/