From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA26866; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:03:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA25070 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:03:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i68F3OSH004978; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:03:24 +0200 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18180) id 7CC49BBD8; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:03:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:03:24 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Christophe Raffalli Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Thread and kernel 2.6 pb still there in CVS Message-ID: <20040708150324.GA3977@yquem.inria.fr> References: <1088166608.1941.120.camel@pelican.wigram> <40DC38D3.4010009@univ-savoie.fr> <20040628150805.GC7353@yquem.inria.fr> <40E0D34C.2040808@univ-savoie.fr> <7AFB5F64-C944-11D8-975C-00039310CAE8@inria.fr> <40E11621.3050709@univ-savoie.fr> <40E97058.5060503@univ-savoie.fr> <20040705163421.GA12344@yquem.inria.fr> <40EA71ED.9040005@baretta.com> <40ED5144.8050903@univ-savoie.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40ED5144.8050903@univ-savoie.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40ED623C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 threads:01 kernel:01 caml:01 float:02 thread:02 thread:02 trick:03 seems:05 cvs:05 suggestion:06 leroy:12 leroy:12 xavier:13 xavier:13 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I did again some testing, with a Caml program with 2 thread, one doing > only float computation for a long time with no allocation. The nanosleep > suggestion seems much better than the actual version doing nothing: I tried the nanosleep() trick on a different workload (several compute-bound threads). Scheduling was less fair than with the "do nothing" implementation. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners