>> yield_to(tid) should not be too hard to implement. Ingo? What do you >> think? > >i dont really like it - it's really the wrong interface to use. Futexes >are a much better locking/signalling interface. yield_to() would not be
i agree in principle, and i was suprised to see Con express this thought so readily. however, i don't agree that futexes are conceptually superior. they don't express the intended operation nearly as accurately as yield_to(tid) would. the operation is "i have nothing else to do, and i want <tid> to run next". a futex says "this particular condition is satisfied, which might wake one or more tasks". its still necessary for the caller to go to sleep explicitly, its still necessary for the tasks involved to know about the futexes, which actually are really irrelevant - there are no conditions to satisfy, just a series of tasks we want to run. --p - 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/
