[ck] Re: Threading issues? [email@example.com: ck Digest,
Vol 3, Issue 16]
kernel at kolivas.org
Fri Aug 27 10:54:19 CDT 2004
Mike Hearn wrote:
>>> Well, apparently we don't use sched_yield, so the problem must
>>>> lie somewhere else. Maybe Con can help us out here? Alexandre says he
>>>> doesn't know what the issue is either and somebody needs to
>>>> investigate. I
>>>> guess we do need to concern ourselves over the details :)
>> Interesting. Probably the most valuable information is that it seems
>> to work fine if we artificially limit the threads to exactly the same
>> timeslice _or_ we put them at such a low priority that they are forced
>> to be guaranteed to round robin one task at a time. This is the way
>> 2.4 used to work which is why with the new 2.6 schedulers which do far
>> more out-of-order rescheduling some applications have a problem;
>> particularly under load. I suspect it's actually the latter issue.
>> Locking between threads should prevent that being a problem, though.
>> You already mentioned that you dont use sched_yield() and I couldn't
>> even begin to look at the wine code myself so perhaps you know
>> something more.
> Hi Con,
> One thought that occurred to me, and this is just a random theory, is
> that maybe the issue is not with the Wine code but the Win32 code run on
> top of it. Do you know how 2.6 scheduling compares with 2.4 and Windows
> (NT) scheduling? Could it be that some apps are written to expect
> Windows-style scheduling and fail to work if they don't get it?
I argued with myself about the logic in this for ages. The best I could
come up with is - I don't know :| I'd need to know about windows
scheduling (which I don't) and how wine treats that scheduling (which I
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20040828/0b3be555/signature.pgp
More information about the wine-devel