Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Why must types be always defined at the top level?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Thread and kernel 2.6 pb still there in CVS
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