From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262578AbVFWXmh (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:42:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262900AbVFWXmg (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:42:36 -0400 Received: from shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net ([24.71.223.10]:15085 "EHLO pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262578AbVFWXkO (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:40:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:39:13 -0600 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep() In-reply-to: <4iz0p-5fH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> To: linux-kernel Message-id: <42BB4821.8040308@shaw.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <4iz0p-5fH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Is this a known problem? Is it going to be fixed? In a possibly > related note, the following: > > main() > { > for(;;) > sched_yield(); > } > > .... is shown to be spinning, by 'top' not sleeping. This, even though > it is giving up its quantum continuously. If no other processes are runnable, this will still use 100% of the CPU. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/