Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 504803
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T06:32:01+00:00 2026-05-13T06:32:01+00:00

I have several threads which act as backup for the main one spending most

  • 0

I have several threads which act as backup for the main one spending most of their life blocked by sem_wait(). Is it OK to keep them or is it better to spawn new threads only when they need to do actual work? Does kernel switch to threads waiting on sem_wait() and “waste” CPU cycles?

Thanks.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T06:32:02+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 6:32 am

    No, blocked threads are never switched in for any common thread library and operating system (it would be an extremely badly designed one where they were). But they will still use memory, of course.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a main thread which should process data coming from several worker threads.
I have several python processes which monitor and act upon physical IO. E.g. shut
I have a multithreaded Java code in which: several threads read stateful objects from
I have several modifying threads and some reading threads, which all access the global
We have a scenario in which several threads call a static method like the
I have a Map which is to be modified by several threads concurrently. There
I have a program which uses an io_service and several threads. It instantiates some
I have a test application in c++ starting several threads in its main() and
I have several AsyncTask worker threads, and during runtime one of them shows up
I have several threads (some of which are spawned by Process X, others by

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.