linux-kernel - Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:27:22 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Buytaert_Steven@....com
CC:	andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

Buytaert_Steven@....com wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andi Kleen
>>[ ... about use of sched_yield ...]
>>On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield
>>but use [...]
> 
> 
> Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc over
> the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note including comments...

Most of these (in core code, anyway) seem to use yield when they really don't
care about running for a while.

> An interesting spot is e.g. fs/buffer.c free_more_memory()

This one should be pretty rare (actually I think it is dead code in practice,
due to the way the page allocator works).

Avoiding sched_yield is a really good idea outside realtime scheduling. Since
we have gone this far with the current semantics, I think it would be sad to
back down now.

It would be nice if you could pressure those other components to adapt :)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/