[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Question about sched_yield()
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 09:58, Chris Friesen wrote:

> David Schwartz wrote:
> > What would you expect?
> If there is only the one task, then sure it's going to be 100% cpu on that
> task.
> However, if there is anything else other than the idle task that wants to
> run, then it should run until it exhausts its timeslice.
> One process looping on sched_yield() and another one doing calculations
> should result in almost the entire system being devoted to calculations.

Exactly. The reason the behavior is odd is not because the sched_yield
task is getting any CPU, David. I realize sched_yield is not equivalent
to blocking.

The reason this behavior is suspect is because the task is receiving a
similar amount of CPU to tasks that are _not_ yielding but in fact doing
useful work for the entire duration of their timeslice.

A task that continually uses its timeslice vs one that yields should
easily receive a greater amount of CPU, but this is not the case.

As someone who works in the scheduler, this points out that sched_yield
is, well, broken. First guess would be it is queuing to the front of
the runqueue (it once did this but I thought it was fixed) or otherwise
exhausting the timeslice wrong.

Someone pointed out this bug existed similarly in 2.5, although it was a
bit different. 2.5 has a different (and better, imo) sched_yield
implementation that tries to overcome certain shortcomings and also
perform optimally and fairly.

Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.095 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site