On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:16, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:28:22 +1100 "Con Kolivas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: Well... are you advocating we change sched_yield semantics to a > > gentler form? > > > >From a practical POV: our present yield() behaviour is so truly awful that > > it's basically always a bug to use it. This probably isn't a good thing. > > So yes, I do think that we should have a rethink and try to come up with > behaviour which is more in accord with what application developers expect > yield() to do. > > otoh, > > a) we should have done this five years ago. Instead, we've spent that > time training userspace programmers to not use yield(), so perhaps > there's little to be gained in changing it now. > > b) if we _were_ to change yield(), people would use it more, and their > applications would of course suck bigtime when run on earlier 2.6 > kernels. > > > Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield() semantics. > We effectively broke back-compatibility by changing its behaviour a lot, > and we can't really turn around and blame application developers for that.
So... I would take it that's a yes for a recommendation with respect to implementing a new yield() ? A new scheduler is as good a time as any to do it. -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
