On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 11:38 -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> But I also found that I needed to add a new
> yield(), to work around yet another unexpected issue on this system -
> we have a number of threads waiting on a condition variable, and the
> thread holding the mutex signals the var, unlocks the mutex, and then
> immediately relocks it. The expectation here is that upon unlocking
> the mutex, the calling thread would block while some waiting thread
> (that just got signaled) would get to run. In fact what happened is
> that the calling thread unlocked and relocked the mutex without
> allowing any of the waiting threads to run. In this case the only
> solution was to insert a yield() after the mutex_unlock().
That's exactly the behavior I would expect. Why would you expect
unlocking a mutex to cause a reschedule, if the calling thread still has
timeslice left?
Lee
-
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-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |