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/
