| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:16:14 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: "Con Kolivas" <kernel@...ivas.org> Cc: mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck@....kolivas.org Subject: Re: RSDL-mm 0.28 > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:28:22 +1100 "Con Kolivas" <kernel@...ivas.org> wrote: > Well... are you advocating we change sched_yield semantics to a > gentler form? >From a practical POV: our present yield() behaviour is so truly awful that it's basically always a bug to use it. This probably isn't a good thing. So yes, I do think that we should have a rethink and try to come up with behaviour which is more in accord with what application developers expect yield() to do. otoh, a) we should have done this five years ago. Instead, we've spent that time training userspace programmers to not use yield(), so perhaps there's little to be gained in changing it now. b) if we _were_ to change yield(), people would use it more, and their applications would of course suck bigtime when run on earlier 2.6 kernels. Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield() semantics. We effectively broke back-compatibility by changing its behaviour a lot, and we can't really turn around and blame application developers for that. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists