On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 01:21, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why is this bad?
> > (a) if it does busy looping through sched_yield it will eat cycles which
> > might not have happened
>
> Things like OpenOffice _do_ busy loop on sched_yield(). It appears with
> that patch, OO will sit there chewing ~1% of CPU. Not great, but not bad
> either..
>
> A few kernels ago, OpenOffice would take sixty seconds to just flop down a
> menu if there was a kernel build happening at the same time. That is just
> utterly broken, so if we're going to leave the sched.c code as-is then we
> *require* that all applications be updated to not spin on sched_yield.
>
> There's just no question about that. It may end up not being acceptable.
actually this is an ooffice bug and is since fixed..... newer ooffice
versions don't have this behavior anymore. Nuking a kernel feature
(basically making sched_yield() more posix compliant) for ONE
broken-since-fixed app doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:12 EST