> > The code is based on some odd assumptions. A select() with 0 delay
> > returns immediately unless there is an interrupt during its
> > (very short!) time in kernel space.
>
> Yeah, I've wondered whether the 0 entries in s_spincycle[]
> shouldn't be 1. The code author evidently expected select()
> to at least yield the processor even with delay 0, but the select()
> man pages I have handy say that it will "return immediately" when delay
> is 0.
I've run some tests with 5 instead of 0 and afair performance was worse,
so we should carefully test !0 values. Actually, one slocks are held
longer than anothers - probably we should use different delays...
Vadim