[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071001162507.GA22791@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:25:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...ius.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS
* Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
> BTW, it looks like risky to criticise sched_yield too much: some
> people can misinterpret such discussions and stop using this at all,
> even where it's right.
Really, i have never seen a _single_ mainstream app where the use of
sched_yield() was the right choice.
Fortunately, the sched_yield() API is already one of the most rarely
used scheduler functionalities, so it does not really matter. [ In my
experience a Linux scheduler is stabilizing pretty well when the
discussion shifts to yield behavior, because that shows that everything
else is pretty much fine ;-) ]
But, because you assert it that it's risky to "criticise sched_yield()
too much", you sure must know at least one real example where it's right
to use it (and cite the line and code where it's used, with
specificity)?
Ingo
-
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