Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:15:19 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: davids@webmaster.com
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network slowdown due to CFS
Message-ID: <20071003071519.GA1726@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEEEHDAC.davids@webmaster.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 866
Lines: 21

On 02-10-2007 17:37, David Schwartz wrote:
...
> So now I not only have to come up with an example where sched_yield is the
> best practical choice, I have to come up with one where sched_yield is the
> best conceivable choice? Didn't we start out by agreeing these are very rare
> cases? Why are we designing new APIs for them (Arjan) and why do we care
> about their performance (Ingo)?
> 
> These are *rare* cases. It is a waste of time to optimize them.

Probably we'll start to care after first comparison tests done by our
rivals. It should be a piece of cake for them to find the "right"
code...

Regards,
Jarek P.
-
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/