Hi Thiago, thanks for clearing this :-)
>> I guess it depends a bit on if you want to yield to another thread or >> not ;-). Of course: burning cpu time is another way to solve this ;-) > > According to the Intel manual, if you *don't* yield and you don't have the > PAUSE instruction, you may make things worse. What do you exactly mean with a PAUSE instruction. Is this a assembler processor command? > For one thing, if you don't yield, the processor will continue executing your > code, without giving a chance for other processes to run. There's no > guarantee > even in a multiprocessor system that the other thread is running. And even if > it's running, if it was scheduled to another thread on the same hyperthreaded > core, the processor may not execute the that thread because this thread still > has instructions to execute. Interesting. Wouldn't it be better to change YieldCurrentThread? I guess, most of us are not aware of this and some of us learned in the 386 century that give back CPU performance to the OS is always a good thing. I guess it is even nowadays a good thing on single core machines. Isn't it? Thanks and Best Regards, Carsten _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
