lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Scheduler Cleanup
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 03:44:42PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Anyway me too have verified an increased latency with sched_yield() test
> > and next days I'm going to try the real one with the cycle counter
> > sampler.
> > I've a suspect, but i've to see the disassembly of schedule() before
> > talking :)
>
> One thing to note is that possible acquisition of the runqueue
> lock was reintroduced in sys_sched_yield(). From looking at
> the code, it seems the purpose was to ?add fairness? in the case
> of multiple yielders. Is that correct Ingo?

Yep, suppose you've three running tasks A, B and C ( in that order ) and
suppose A and B are yield()ing.
You get:

A B A B A B A B A B A ...

until the priority of A or B drops, then C has a chance to execute.
Since with the new counter decay code priority remains up until a sudden
drop, why don't we decrease counter by K ( 1? ) for each sched_yield() call ?
In this way we can easily avoid the above pattern in case of multiple
yield()ers.



PS: sched_yield() code is very important because it is used inside the
pthread spinlock() wait path for a bunch of times before falling into
usleep().



- Davide



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.238 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site