[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203583439.6243.119.camel@lappy>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:43:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peter@...gramming.kicks-ass.net>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Make yield_task_fair more efficient
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:09 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> sched_yield() is supported API
For SCHED_FIFO/SCHED_RR.
> and also look at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/351.
Read on (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/19/371) and find:
The sched_yield() behaviour is actually very well-defined for RT
tasks (now, whether it's a good interface to use or not is still
open to debate, but at least it's a _defined_ interface ;), and
I think we should at least try to approximate that behaviour for
normal tasks, even if they aren't RT.
sched_yield() just isn't a very useful API except in RT and even there
one can question it.
> I am trying to make sched_yield() efficient
> when compat_sched_yield is turned on (which is most likely), since people will
> want that behaviour (Hint, please read the man-page for sched_yield).
I did, so what? read the POSIX spec - its just plain undefined for
SCHED_OTHER. We already do something 'sensible' for those few broken
applications relying on unspecified behaviour.
> There are
> already several applications using sched_yield(), so they all suffer.
Who is using it, where is their source so we can show its faster to not
use it?
Really, hiding behind closed sores doesn't make it good.
--
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