| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1213023893.23439.187.camel@twins> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:04:53 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> To: Jakub Jozwicki <jozwicki@...er.pl> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> Subject: Re: sched_yield() on 2.6.25 On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 08:37 +0200, Jakub Jozwicki wrote: > > > Is this behavior expected? > > > > The behavior of sched_yield with SCHED_OTHER processes has changed > > several times with Linux over the years, since its behavior is not > > defined by standards, so it's really "whatever the scheduler feels like > > doing". The behavior is only defined with realtime scheduling > > (SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_OTHER). > > > > Generally, it's a mistake to assume specific timing behavior from > > sched_yied for SCHED_OTHER processes. > > From the man sched_yield: > > A process can relinquish the processor voluntarily without blocking by > calling sched_yield(). The process will then be moved to the end of the > queue for its static priority and a new process gets to run. > > and also IEEE/Open Group: > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/sched_yield.html Yeah, except that is for Real-Time scheduling classes, SCHED_OTHER doesn't have static priority queues. SCHED_OTHER doesn't have a specified implementation - so relying on it to do anything specific is well outside the scope of definition. -- 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