linux-kernel - Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat

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]

Message-Id: <200712041309.48451.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:09:48 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	davids@...master.com
Cc:	"Mark Lord" <lkml@....ca>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 11:30, David Schwartz wrote:

> Perhaps it might be possible to scan for the task at the same static
> priority level that is ready-to-run but last in line among other
> ready-to-run tasks and put it after that task?

Nice level versus posix static priority level debate aside, this
is the exact behaviour which the compat mode does now basically,
when you have all tasks running at nice 0 (which I assume is the
essentially the case in both the jvm and firefox tests) (some
things, eg. kernel threads or X server could run at a higher prio,
but these are not the ones calling yield anyway...)

> I think that's about as 
> close as we can get to the POSIX-specified behavior.

I don't think it is a question of POSIX being a bit fuzzy, or some
problem we have implementing it. It is explicitly specified to
allow any behaviour.

So the current default is not wrong, any more than the compat mode
is right.
--
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/