On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:46:22 +1100
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

quoted text
> > Todays kernel has a different behavior somewhat (and before people
> > scream "regression"; sched_yield() behavior isn't really specified
> > and doesn't make any sense at all, whatever you get is what you
> > get.... it's pretty much an insane defacto behavior that is
> > incredibly tied to which decisions the scheduler makes how, and no
> > app can depend on that
> 
> It is a performance regression. Is there any reason *not* to use the
> "compat" yield by default? As you say, for SCHED_OTHER tasks, yield
> can do almost anything. We may as well do something that isn't a
> regression..

it just makes OTHER tests/benchmarks regress.... this is one of those
things where you just can't win.

quoted text
> 
> 
> > in any way. In fact, I've proposed to make sched_yield() just do an
> > msleep(1)... that'd be closer to what sched_yield is supposed to do
> > standard wise than any of the current behaviors .... ;_
> 
> What makes you say that? IIRC of all the things that sched_yeild can
> do, it is not allowed to block. So this is about the only thing that
> will break the standard...

sched_yield OF COURSE can block.. it's a schedule call after all!



-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/