Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Why is this bad?
> (a) if it does busy looping through sched_yield it will eat cycles which
> might not have happened
Things like OpenOffice _do_ busy loop on sched_yield(). It appears with
that patch, OO will sit there chewing ~1% of CPU. Not great, but not bad
either..
A few kernels ago, OpenOffice would take sixty seconds to just flop down a
menu if there was a kernel build happening at the same time. That is just
utterly broken, so if we're going to leave the sched.c code as-is then we
*require* that all applications be updated to not spin on sched_yield.
There's just no question about that. It may end up not being acceptable.
Has anyone looked at what Andrea did in -aa? I assume some suitable
compromise was achieved there.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:37 EST