Subject: Re: yield API
From: Eric St-Laurent <ericstl34@sympatico.ca>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20071002064620.GA26638@elte.hu>
References: <20071001173159.GB2492@elte.hu>
	 <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKOEOBHCAC.davids@webmaster.com>
	 <20071002064620.GA26638@elte.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:57:51 -0400
Message-Id: <1191362271.29539.1.camel@perkele>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 26


On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 08:46 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

[...]

> APIs that are not in any real, meaningful use, despite a decade of 
> presence are not really interesting to me personally. (especially in 
> this case where we know exactly _why_ the API is used so rarely.) Sure 
> we'll continue to support it in the best possible way, with the usual 
> kernel maintainance policy: without hurting other, more commonly used 
> APIs. That was the principle we followed in previous schedulers too. And 
> if anyone has a patch to make sched_yield() better than it is today, i'm 
> of course interested in it.

Do you still have intentions to add a directed yield API?  I remember
seeing it in the earlier CFS patches.


- Eric


-
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/