RE: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield

	I've asked versions of this question at least three times and never gotten
anything approaching a straight answer:

	1) What is the current default 'sched_yield' behavior?

	2) What is the current alternate 'sched_yield' behavior?

	3) Are either of them sensible? Simply acting as if the current thread's
timeslice was up should be sufficient.

	The implication I keep getting is that neither the default behavior nor the
alternate behavior are sensible. What is so hard about simply scheduling the
next thread?

	We don't need perfection, but it sounds like we have two alternatives of
which neither is sensible.

	DS


--
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
    • From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [feature] automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
• Next by Date: PATCH: Remove endflag in NMI smp_call_function call
• Previous by thread: Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
• Next by thread: Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]