Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:58:41 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Kohji Okuno <okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Subject: Re: Bug about sched_4bsd? Message-ID: <3bbf2fe11001171858o4568fe38l9b2db54ec9856b50@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100117.152835.119882392487126976.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com> References: <20100117.142200.321689433999177718.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com> <20100117.152835.119882392487126976.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/1/17 Kohji Okuno <okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>: > Hello, > > Could you check sched_4bsd.patch, please? I think, instead, that what needs to happen is to have sched_switch() to do a lock handover from sleepq/turnstile spinlock to schedlock. That way, if threads are willing to contest on td_lock they will be still inhibited. I'm not sure if this patch breaks any invariant, if you may test I would appreciate: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sched_4bsd_schedlock.diff Reviews and comments are appreciated. BTW, nice catch. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe11001171858o4568fe38l9b2db54ec9856b50>