Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: Question about sched_yield() | Date | Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:03:34 +1000 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020619072548.1119D-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com> you wr ite: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:46:29 -0700 > > David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote: > > > "The sched_yield() function shall force the running thread to relinquish the > > > processor until it again becomes the head of its thread list. It takes no > > > arguments." > > > > Notice how incredibly useless this definition is. It's even defined in ter ms > > of UP. > > I think you parse this differently than I, I see no reference to UP. The > term "the processor" clearly (to me at least) means the processor running > in that thread at the time of the yeild. > > The number of processors running in a single thread at any one time is an > integer number in the range zero to one.
It's the word "until": "relinquish the processor until".
It's pretty clearly implied that it's going to "unrelinquish" *the processor* at the end of this process.
So, by your definition, it can be scheduled on another CPU before it becomes head of the thread list?
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |