From: berserker_r (berserker_r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-24 03:55:00
Christopher Kohlhoff wrote:
> Well in your case the long running operation isn't CPU bound since it
> calls Sleep(). That's why I asked about it early on in this discussion,
> because the only way I could reproduce the behaviour was to make it CPU
> bound (e.g. an infinite loop "while (true) ;").
What's the "implementation" difference from sleeping a long time and an
infinite loop? The sleep call could be replaced by a lock on a mutex that
takes a lot of time to acquire the access, does that make difference? I
always need to be free to accept new connections...
Thanks again for your response, I'll try some more tests soon ;)