* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

> * William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> >> [...] sched_yield() semantics are yet another twist.
> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:40:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > that's nonsense, sched_yield() semantics are totally uninteresting. It 
> > is a fundamentally broken interface.

> [...] As an interface it may be poor and worse yet poorly specified, 
> [...]

that's the only thing that matters to fundamental design questions like 
this.

> The content of my comment was that the patch does something to 
> sched_yield() semantics, so it raises the question of what will happen 
> in benchmarks and other performance affairs that are sensitive to 
> sched_yield() semantics changes.

the correct aproach to the "sys_sched_yield() is an API that sucks" 
problem is to simply _not use it_. User-space is figuring that out now, 
fortunately.

	Ingo
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers