CPU time, AND won't let lower priority background threads to run. It won't
Thanks Alexander,
You mean Sleep(0) will consume 100% CPU time? I can not believe it because
in MSDN, it is mentioned that Sleep(0) will let current thread *If you
specify 0 milliseconds, the thread will relinquish the remainder of its
time
slice but remain ready*. I assume it means the current thread will
contribute
its remaining running time to other ready status thread.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686298(VS.85).aspx
Do you have a test program which proves Sleep(0) will still occupy 100%
CPU
time?
regards,
George
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote:
Sleep(0) is causing kernel trip anyway (lots of them in the usual case,
since it's called in a loop), compared to only 2 for WFSO/SetEvent pair.
And
this loop doesn't allow to stop processor clock to reduce CPU power. When
I
see an application comsuming 100%, that gives me doubts about its general
quality, and I get rid of it.
"Alex Blekhman" <tkfx.REMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uFdF0$WSIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote:
Anyway, the sample illustrates very poor synchronization practice
which
should not be followed. Proper signalling using events makes volatile
qualifier unnecessary.
There is nothing wrong with this technique if it used correctly.
Synchronization with events or other kernel objects brings the high
price
of user space to kernel space trip. It is not uncommon that you need to
synchronize within single process only. In these cases volatile
variables
may provide adequate solution.
Alex