Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:31:58 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: sched_yield proposals/rationale |
| |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:05:25AM -0400, Buytaert_Steven@emc.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andi Kleen > > [ ... about use of sched_yield ...] > > On the other hand when they fix their code to not rely on sched_yield > > but use [...] > > Agreed, but $ find . -name "*.[ch]" | xargs grep -E "yield[ ]*\(" | wc over > the 2.6.16 kernel yields 105 hits, note including comments... An interesting spot is e.g. fs/buffer.c free_more_memory()
A lot of those are probably broken in some way agreed.
> > > > > 2) When a task is eventually put in the expired list in sched_yield, > > > give it back the full time slices round (as done in scheduler_tick), not > > with the remaining slices as is done now? > > > > That would likely be unfair and exploitable. > > I don't understand; how more unfair would it be than passing via scheduler_tick? Grabbing a resource with a single time slice left would be more unfair towards other tasks IMHO when you get moved to the expired list with the resource in still in your possession.
With a particular sleep pattern it could get more CPU time.
> > > 3) Put the task in the expired list at a random position, not at the end > > > is done now? > > > > Sounds like an interesting approach, but to do it in O(1) you would > > need a new data structure with possibly much larger constant overhead. > > Agreed, but not dramatic. Suppose you need to insert at position X, you would do, on the linked list after proper setup: > > while (X--) { prev = current; current = current->next } > > You could have a small duffs device to reduce the X-- checking overhead.
You would need to rename the scheduler to "sometimes O(1)" first @)
Besides - but I guess you're aware of it - any randomized algorithms tend to drive benchmarkers and performance analysts crazy because their performance cannot be repeated. So it's usually better to avoid them unless there is really no alternative.
-Andi - 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/
| |