Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mark Lord <lkml@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Ack.  And what of the suggestion to try to ensure that a yielding task 
> simply not end up as the very next one chosen to run?  Maybe by 
> swapping it with another (adjacent?) task in the tree if it comes out 
> on top again?

we did that too for quite some time in CFS - it was found to be "not 
agressive enough" by some folks and "too agressive" by others. Then when 
people started bickering over this we added these two simple corner 
cases - switchable via a flag. (minimum agression and maximum agression)

> (I really don't know the proper terminology to use here, but hopefully 
> Ingo can translate that).

the terminology you used is perfectly fine.

> Thanks Ingo -- I *really* like this scheduler!

heh, thanks :) For which workload does it make the biggest difference 
for you? (and compared to what other scheduler you used before? 2.6.22?)

	Ingo
--
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/