On Sunday 11 March 2007 14:39, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:59:28 +1100 Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bottom line: we've had a _lot_ of problems with the new yield() > > > semantics. We effectively broke back-compatibility by changing its > > > behaviour a lot, and we can't really turn around and blame application > > > developers for that. > > > > So... I would take it that's a yes for a recommendation with respect to > > implementing a new yield() ? A new scheduler is as good a time as any to > > do it. > > I guess so. We'd, err, need to gather Ingo's input ;)
cc'ed. Don't you hate timezones? > Perhaps a suitable way of doing this would be to characterise then emulate > the 2.4 behaviour. As long as it turns out to be vaguely sensible. It's really very simple. We just go the end of the current queued priority on the same array instead of swapping to the expired array; ie we do what realtime tasks currently do. It works fine here locally afaict. -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
