Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: sched_yield: delete sysctl_sched_compat_yield | From | "Zhang, Yanmin" <> | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:15:27 +0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:46 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:57, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:33:05 +0800 > > > > "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > If echo "1">/proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield before starting > > > volanoMark testing, the result is very good with kernel 2.6.24-rc3 on > > > my 16-core tigerton. > > > > > > 1) If /proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield=1, comparing with 2.6.22, > > > 2.6.24-rc3 has more than 70% improvement; > > > 2) If /proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield=0, comparing with 2.6.22, > > > 2.6.24-rc3 has more than 80% regression; > > > > > > On other machines, the volanoMark result also has much improvement if > > > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield=1. > > > > > > Would you like to change function yield_task_fair to delete codes > > > around sysctl_sched_compat_yield, or just initiate it to 1? > > > > sounds like a bad idea; volanomark (well, technically the jvm behind > > it) is abusing sched_yield() by assuming it does something it really > > doesn't do, and as it happens some of the earlier 2.6 schedulers > > accidentally happened to behave in a way that was nice for this > > benchmark. > > OK, why is this still happening? Haven't we been asking JVMs to use > futexes or posix locking for years and years now? Are there any sane > jvms that _don't_ use yield? I think it's an issue of volanomark (a kind of java application) instead of JVM.
> > > > Todays kernel has a different behavior somewhat (and before people > > scream "regression"; sched_yield() behavior isn't really specified and > > doesn't make any sense at all, whatever you get is what you get.... > > it's pretty much an insane defacto behavior that is incredibly tied to > > which decisions the scheduler makes how, and no app can depend on that > > It is a performance regression. Is there any reason *not* to use the > "compat" yield by default? There is no, so I suggest to set sched_compat_yield=1 by default. If sched_compat_yield=0, kernel almost does nothing but returns. When sched_compat_yield=1, it is closer to the meaning of sched_yield man page.
> As you say, for SCHED_OTHER tasks, yield > can do almost anything. We may as well do something that isn't a > regression... I just found SCHED_OTHER in man sched_setscheduler. Is it SCHED_NORMAL in the latest kernel?
> > > > in any way. In fact, I've proposed to make sched_yield() just do an > > msleep(1)... that'd be closer to what sched_yield is supposed to do > > standard wise than any of the current behaviors .... ;_ > > What makes you say that? IIRC of all the things that sched_yeild can > do, it is not allowed to block. So this is about the only thing that > will break the standard... - 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/
| |