Henrik Sperre Johansen wrote
Which clearly contradicts the statements in the linked post "Nothing changes within priorities. What the setting controls is what happens when a process is preempted by a higher-priority process. The old code did an implicit yield of the preempted process, destroying the guarantee of cooperative scheduling within a priority."
Or it could mean the understanding was that processes at the same priority would have to explicitly yield for other processes of the same priority to run also with preemptionyields = true. ... which, seems to be true. It's just that we never see that in practice, even running at pri 80, as the DelaySemaphoreScheduler (which runs at 80) is at the head of the list, and gets woken every now and then. Reducing it's pri to 70, and then doing the same test with threads at pri80 (but containing plenty of suspension points), we indeed get 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 TIL, I guess :) Cheers, Henry -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html