Francois Gouget wrote:
> I think it's really a three patch series and the first one has the
> clearer commit message:
>
> Made NtDelayExecution with a 0 timeout yield the CPU, as it is
> supposed to.
I agree that this is the correct behaviour for the "zero timeout"
case. The comments that
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Juan Lang wrote:
[...]
> > Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> > >> i.e. commit 8099c2b9. JW says "... to more closely resemble Windows
> > >> behavior. The key is to yield in a Sleep..."
I think it's really a three patch series and the first one has the
clearer commit message:
commi
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Graham Knap wrote:
> Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> >> i.e. commit 8099c2b9. JW says "... to more closely resemble Windows
> >> behavior. The key is to yield in a Sleep..."
> >
> > JW is Jeremy White so us old timers chuckle now ;)
>
> I know the name, but nothing mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 2013-03-08 15:11, schrieb Graham Knap:
> Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
>> If the ancient wisdom isn't backed by tests there's a fair chance
>> that it might not be applicable today. Or that it was a wrong
>> theory
This is guesswork, but maybe the yield
Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
>> i.e. commit 8099c2b9. JW says "... to more closely resemble Windows
>> behavior. The key is to yield in a Sleep..."
>
> JW is Jeremy White so us old timers chuckle now ;)
I know the name, but nothing more. Why is this funny?
> If the ancient wisdom isn't backed by tes
On 03/06/2013 07:10 PM, Graham wrote:
> Alexandre wrote:
>> That's what the existing code already does.
>
> Indeed. I don't know what I was thinking...
>
>>> 2. If you're about to block on select(), then I don't see any point in
>>> preceding that with a call to sched_yield().
>>
>> This was adde
Alexandre wrote:
> That's what the existing code already does.
Indeed. I don't know what I was thinking...
>> 2. If you're about to block on select(), then I don't see any point in
>> preceding that with a call to sched_yield().
>
> This was added for a reason; most likely you'll have to write te
You may try and find that MSDN or blog page where people explain the
subtle differences of Sleep(0) and Sleep(1) on multi-core machines.
Regards,
Jörg Höhle
Graham writes:
> This patch is vaguely related to bug 24558. It eliminates a few
> syscalls in NtDelayExecution:
>
> 1. If the caller requests a zero-wait yield, then do just that, and
> nothing more.
That's what the existing code already does.
> 2. If you're about to block on select(), then I
