On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:56:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:55:34PM +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > ... > > > just a quick patch, not tested and I've not evaluated all possible > > > implications yet. > > > But someone might give it a try with his/(her -- are even more > > > welcomed :-) favourite sched_yield() load. > > > > Of course, after some evaluation by yourself and Ingo the most > > interesting should be Martin's Michlmayr testing, so I hope you'll Cc > > him too?! > > My current take on this: queue the current task right to the next > position in the tree (this is what this patch achieves in essence) was > one of the yield implementations we already tried in CFS but it didnt > meet the expectations of some apps. So i can only repeat my argument: > this is not something that can be "solved" in the way you imagine and > your arguments just reiterate the path that CFS has already taken in the > past. So please do not expect _us_ to go out and pester people. If > people feel so inclined, they are of course welcome to test out various > approaches. (they might as well try the original yield-granularity patch > which also makes the amount of "delay" tunable, so the ideal amount of > delay can be figured out. And of course they should also try the > existing yield flag.)
I'm terribly sorry! Of course, the last thing I would like is to pester anybody. I simply wasn't sure you've told about the same idea. And of course, there is no reason to go back to something checked before. Thanks, Jarek P. - 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/
