From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA12587; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:56:09 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA11981 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:56:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (planar.net0.nerim.net [213.41.168.102]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6AAu5EV021216 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:56:06 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: <20040624194603.2A91010EF06@clark.cs.brown.edu> <1088158825.1941.113.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040625110748.GB2707@bourg.inria.fr> <1088166608.1941.120.camel@pelican.wigram> <40DC38D3.4010009@univ-savoie.fr> <20040628150805.GC7353@yquem.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Thread and kernel 2.6 pb still there in CVS Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:56:08 +0200 To: caml-list Caml X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40EFCB45.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 wakefield:99 sched:01 quantum:99 bug:01 sched:01 bug:01 kernel:01 ocaml:01 primitives:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 thread:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Jul 10, 2004, at 01:21, Donald Wakefield wrote: > I know this comes a bit late in this 'thread', but there's been > discussion on Slashdot on a new scheduler framework called Bossa. I > posted a quote from Xavier's discussion of sched_yield, and another > poster replied. In brief: I read that post and I don't think it makes any sense at all. > "...OpenOffice.org and Ocaml have to wait too long for their next CPU > quantum, but that's because they are CPU bound tasks and it's their > own fault. In other words, a CPU-bound task should not expect to get CPU time. Duh. > "The bug was in past versions of Linux where, although it was > pre-emptive, sched_yield was allowed some power - it should have been > ignored in user-space and the scheduler decided what gets CPU and > when. Depending on that bug is also a bug and the mis-users deserve > everything they get." This implies that the new scheduler is just as buggy as the old one, since it doesn't ignore sched_yield either. The real problem, IMO, is that there are two "yield" primitives needed: one for yielding to another thread, and one for yielding to another process. They (basically) changed sched_yield from one to the other, but the right solution would be to provide both. -- Damien ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners