Re: iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 10:51 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I doubt that. This is in the iperf code itself.
> > 
> > void thread_rest ( void ) {
> > #if defined( HAVE_THREAD )
> > #if defined( HAVE_POSIX_THREAD )
> >     // TODO add checks for sched_yield or pthread_yield and call that
> >     // if available
> >     usleep( 0 );
> > 
> > ----------^^^^
> > 
> > It results in a nanosleep({0,0}, NULL)
> > 
> > 	tglx
> > 
> 
> Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever.
> But are other broken applications going to have same problem.
> Sounds like the old "who runs first" fork() problems.

Not really. The fork() "who runs first" problem is nowhere specified.

usleep(0) is well defined:

.... If the value of useconds is 0, then the call has no effect.

So the call into the kernel has been wrong for quite a time.

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/