Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Lee Revell wrote:
 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?

That's beside the point. Folks are making an assertion that sched_yield() is meaningless; this example demonstrates that there are cases where sched_yield() is essential.

--
 -- Howard Chu
 Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
 Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
 OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/

-
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]
  Powered by Linux