Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

[Paul Davis]

>> yield_to(tid) should not be too hard to implement. Ingo? What do you
>> think?
>
>i dont really like it - it's really the wrong interface to use. Futexes
>are a much better locking/signalling interface. yield_to() would not be

i agree in principle, and i was suprised to see Con express this
thought so readily. 

however, i don't agree that futexes are conceptually superior. they
don't express the intended operation nearly as accurately as
yield_to(tid) would. the operation is "i have nothing else to do, and
i want <tid> to run next". a futex says "this particular condition is
satisfied, which might wake one or more tasks". its still necessary
for the caller to go to sleep explicitly, its still necessary for the
tasks involved to know about the futexes, which actually are really
irrelevant - there are no conditions to satisfy, just a series of
tasks we want to run.

--p


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/