viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me, but WTF do they spin on the sched_yield() in the first place?
> _That_ sounds like utterly broken...
I think it's happening down inside the old linuxthreads library. No idea
who, what, where or why.
There are quite a few places in the kernel which do it, too. Usually when
waiting for memory to come free. These are being gradually removed, in
favour of blk_congestion_wait() calls.
That leaves behind the very performance-critical sched_yield() in ext3
transaction batching. That was designed to allow other processes to join a
transaction before the calling one closes the transaction. With the new
yield() it was causing horrid starvation and was lamely replaced with a
schedule(). It needs to be resurrected for real, but I'm not sure how.
Probably just a sleep(0.01).
-
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