Re: Scalable locks...

From	Ramine <ramine@1.1>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	Re: Scalable locks...
Date	2014-10-23 12:05 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<m2b8vc$3ti$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<m26lj4$8fu$1@dont-email.me> <m26n9h$dj3$1@dont-email.me> <KLB1w.504226$rb.451721@fx16.am4> <m2b7fa$u1i$1@dont-email.me> <kB92w.567960$3F6.516168@fx02.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/23/2014 8:59 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Ramine wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2014 4:12 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Ramine wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Sleep(0) is on Windows, to give up he time slice.
>>>
>>> That's only necessary if you're running Win9x, and even then only if
>>> you've got a 16-bit application. I suggest you upgrade to a decent
>>> operating system (or, if you prefer, Windows 7).
>>
>> The problem shows on Windows 2008 server too, so i had
>> to use sleep(0) to correct the problem.
>
> Is it your claim, then, that Windows 2008 server uses co-operative
> multitasking rather than pre-emptive?
>

the problem shows on pre-emptive operating system like Windows 2008 
server, i have explained to you why, and i have used sleep(0) and
it has worked correctly.




Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Thread

Scalable locks... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-10-21 18:10 -0700
  Re: Scalable locks... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-10-21 18:39 -0700
    Re: Scalable locks... Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-10-22 00:12 +0100
      Re: Scalable locks... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-10-23 11:39 -0700
        Re: Scalable locks... Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-10-23 16:59 +0100
          Re: Scalable locks... Ramine <ramine@1.1> - 2014-10-23 12:05 -0700
          Re: Scalable locks... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-10-23 18:02 +0000
            Re: Scalable locks... Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-10-23 22:01 +0100

csiph-web