Hi Peter,
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:06:54 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:59 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Well, I guess only people monitoring system latency would notice, as
> > > this is the only thing yield() was supposed to help with in the first
> > > place.
> >
> > if (need_resched())
> > schedule();
>
> aka.
>
> cond_resched();
Are you saying that most calls to yield() should be replaced with calls
to cond_resched()?
I admit I a little skeptical. While the description of cond_resched()
("latency reduction via explicit rescheduling in places that are safe")
sounds promising, following the calls leads me to:
static inline int need_resched(void)
{
return unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_RESCHED));
}
So apparently the condition for need_resched() to do anything is
considered unlikely... suggesting that cond_resched() is a no-op in
most cases? I don't quite get the point of moving away from sched()
because it is a no-op, if we end up with a no-op under a different name.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
