[phobos] Sleep(0) vs Sleep(1) for yield
Brad Roberts
braddr at puremagic.com
Sun Sep 5 13:07:14 PDT 2010
It probably shouldn't be done via a version statement as that's purely a compile
time decisions. Runtime would allow apps to choose behavior based on where they
run.
On 9/5/2010 11:40 AM, David Simcha wrote:
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. We're basically talking about getting rid of
> workarounds for problems on platforms where the original problem doesn't exist.
> Thanks for noticing/taking care of this.
>
> On 9/5/2010 12:17 PM, SK wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Core.thread.yield call has a performance hobbling work-around for
>> scheduler problems in Windws XP and earlier:
>>
>> /**
>> * Forces a context switch to occur away from the calling thread.
>> */
>> static void yield()
>> {
>> version( Windows )
>> {
>> // NOTE: Sleep(1) is necessary because Sleep(0) does not give
>> // lower priority threads any timeslice, so looping on
>> // Sleep(0) could be resource-intensive in some cases.
>> Sleep( 1 );
>> }
>> else version( Posix )
>> {
>> sched_yield();
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Microsoft fortunately fixed the problem for new versions of Windows,
>> starting with Windows Server 2003 as described here:
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686298%28VS.85%29.aspx
>>
>> On Windows 7:
>> Sleep(1), the workaround, allows only 1000 thread yields per second
>> per core, which is agonizingly slow.
>> Sleep(0) allows 4.7 Million yields per second per core on my 2.6GHz machine.
>>
>> Any objection to changing to Sleep(0) for Windows 2003 and above?
>> What definition is suitable for use in version() to make this distinction?
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> phobos mailing list
>> phobos at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
More information about the phobos
mailing list