On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 13:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:49:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >> The intent of a yield() call, like this one here, is unambiguously
> > > >> that the current thread cannot do anything until some other thread
> > > >> gets onto the cpu and makes forward progress.
>
> Yeah; like Thomas said; that's not what yield() does -- or can do.
>
> yield() only says 'I don't know what to do, you figure it out', but then
> fails to provide enough information to actually do something sensible.
>
> It cannot put the task to sleep; because it doesn't pair with a wakeup;
> and therefore the task stays an eligible/runnable task from a scheduler
> pov.
>
> The scheduler is therefore entirely in its right to pick this task
> again; and pretty much has to under many circumstances.
>
> yield() does not, and can not, guarantee forward progress - ever.
>
> Use wait_event() and assorted bits to wait for an actual event. That is
> a sleep paired with a wakeup and thus has progress guarantees.
Why wouldn't it be safe to redefine yield as msleep(1) ?
net/ipv4/tcp_output.c seems to also use yield().
/* Socket is locked, keep trying until memory is available. */
for (;;) {
skb = alloc_skb_fclone(MAX_TCP_HEADER,
sk->sk_allocation);
if (skb)
break;
yield();
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
