Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alexander Terekhov Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads Subject: Re: cond signal wait Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:32:09 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 17 Message-ID: <4DE4EDD9.7B27185A@web.de> References: <87aaebte7o.fsf@justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk> <98cd47de-73d9-48e9-ac18-cc01cac1bb48@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <87lixubzfu.fsf@justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk> <8ab4e07e-2b9b-4375-b425-dc03e6d017d5@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <4DDFAEC8.531D6882@web.de> <2f847af0-7f62-43d2-aff3-f35f0d42c3ce@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <4DE0E997.42657B4A@web.de> <38011e68-82bb-4ca5-af04-009c2d750e17@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: terekhov@web.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="MCbSEzW5qwGLFMNXJh39IQ"; logging-data="30561"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nAfbyVtWluTr+QOnTcPtLr0yaQz5FOdw=" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bw455JEka3sPLSUXfUBqkndRnGk= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.programming.threads:210 David Schwartz wrote: [...] > If that's the case, why care about performance since there's clearly > tons of CPU to spare? Quite the contrary, the case in which you care > about performance is when all the cores are doing useful work and a > wasted context switch ejects a useful task and blows away its caches. You didn't get me: I'm taking about the case with no context switching/no ejected threads due to blocking (i.e. there is nothing to blow away). IOW, assume that you just can't perceive the effect of (supposed) context switching. regards, alexander.