"William E. Kempf" wrote:
[...]
> > explicit scoped_lock(lightweight_mutex & m): m_(m)
> > {
> > while( InterlockedExchange(&m_.l_, 1) )
> > {
> > // Note: changed to Sleep(1) from Sleep(0).
> > // According to MSDN, Sleep(0) will never yield
> > // to a lower-priority thread, whereas Sleep(1)
> > // will. Performance seems not to be affected.
> >
> > Sleep(1);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > (I don't actually use yield yet, so currently have no preference for
> > either, but just wondered what the intended use of yield was)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, <quoting Butenhof> "sched_yield() can be used to resolve some problems
on a uniprocessor, though such problems can usually be solved more cleanly in
other ways. Using sched_yield() will never solve a problem (unless the problem
statement is "the performance is too good") on a multiprocessor, and you
should never use it there."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=LiSt9.14%24jw2.278613%40news.cpqcorp.net
(Subject: Re: relinquishing a time-slice)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rzdE7.1198%24RL6.17634%40news.cpqcorp.net
(Subject: Re: Thread yield question (repost))
>
> I'll look into this and fix it. Thanks.
Other than "breaking" the yield() it won't fix anything, I'm afraid.
regards,
alexander.
--
It's "Unix" if it has the "x" sound in its name - the Xbox must be Unix then.
--from a discussion on slashdot.org
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
