Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield

* Mark Lord <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's not the same thing at all. I think that David is suggesting 
> that the reinsertion logic should pretend that the task used up all of 
> the CPU time it was offered in the slot leading up to the 
> sched_yield() call.

we have tried this too, and this has problems too (artificial inflation 
of the vruntime metric and a domino effects on other portions of the 
scheduler). So this is a worse solution than what we have now. (and this 
has all been pointed out in past discussions in which David 
participated. I'll certainly reply to any genuinely new idea.)

	Ingo
--
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: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
    • From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>
  • Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
    • From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
  • Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield
    • From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Timers SMP] can this machine be helped?
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/2] x86, ptrace: support for branch trace store(BTS)
• 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]