Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale

[Nick Piggin]

Buytaert_Steven@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andi Kleen
> > [ ... about use of sched_yield ...]
> > On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield
> > but use [...]
>
>
> Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc over
> the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note including comments...

Most of these (in core code, anyway) seem to use yield when they really don't
care about running for a while.

> An interesting spot is e.g. fs/buffer.c free_more_memory()

This one should be pretty rare (actually I think it is dead code in practice,
due to the way the page allocator works).

Avoiding sched_yield is a really good idea outside realtime scheduling. Since
we have gone this far with the current semantics, I think it would be sad to
back down now.

It would be nice if you could pressure those other components to adapt :)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/