* William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
