[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180985178.4404.48.camel@chaos>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:26:18 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@...monizer.de>,
Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@...adcom.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?)
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 21:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever.
> > But are other broken applications going to have same problem.
> > Sounds like the old "who runs first" fork() problems.
>
> Not really. The fork() "who runs first" problem is nowhere specified.
>
> usleep(0) is well defined:
>
> .... If the value of useconds is 0, then the call has no effect.
>
> So the call into the kernel has been wrong for quite a time.
>
Just for clarification: I'm not saying that we should break the (broken)
user space ABI. I'm going to work out a patch which prints out a warning
(limited number per boot) and emulating the old behavior by a call to
yield() along with an entry into (mis)feature-removal.txt.
tglx
-
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