Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:53:50 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: davids@webmaster.com
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS
Message-ID: <20071001125350.055ef9bb@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGENHHCAC.davids@webmaster.com>
References: <20071001162507.GA22791@elte.hu>
	<MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGENHHCAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1200
Lines: 29

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:49:35 -0700
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

> 
> > * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, it looks like risky to criticise sched_yield too much: some
> > > people can misinterpret such discussions and stop using this at
> > > all, even where it's right.
> 
> > Really, i have never seen a _single_ mainstream app where the use of
> > sched_yield() was the right choice.
> 
> It can occasionally be an optimization. You may have a case where you
> can do something very efficiently if a lock is not held, but you
> cannot afford to wait for the lock to be released. So you check the
> lock, if it's held, you yield and then check again. If that fails,
> you do it the less optimal way (for example, dispatching it to a
> thread that *can* afford to wait).


at this point it's "use a futex" instead; once you're doing system
calls you might as well use the right one for what you're trying to
achieve.
-
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/