Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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: 2004-07-09 (23:22)
From: Donald Wakefield <don.wakefield@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Thread and kernel 2.6 pb still there in CVS
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:08:05 +0200, Xavier Leroy <> wrote:
> The 2.6 Linux kernels changed the behavior of sched_yield() in a way
> that causes the unfairness you observed.  Other threaded applications
> are affected, including Open Office (!).  My belief is that it's
> really a bug in 2.6 kernels and that the new behavior of sched_yield(),
> while technically conformant to the POSIX specs, lowers the quality of
> implementation quite a lot.
> (I seem to remember from my LinuxThreads development days that this
> isn't the first time the kernel developers broke sched_yield(), then
> realized their error.)

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:

" 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.

"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."

The full reply can be read at:


 Don Wakefield

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: