From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 18 05:49:54 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A531A37B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DBA43F85
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA10917;
	Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:49:45 +1000
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:49:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304171921370.54473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Message-ID: <20030418224018.Y12417@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304171921370.54473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: some small patches
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:49:55 -0000

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>
> > I object to the sched_clock() change.  We've discussed this on threads@
>
> Yes and the clock code doesn't need to know about KSEs and it is of
> ABSOLUTLY NO difference to the sched_clock() function if it derives the
> thread from the KSE or derives the KSE from the thread.

I mostly agree, but your argument would be better if statclock() didn't
need to know about the KSE to determine the niceness.  The niceness
statistic is rotting anyway.  It only covers one type of special
scheduling.  Statistics utilites generally are mostly missing support for
the following complications:
- rtprio/idprio scheduling
- POSIX scheduling
- KSE
- alternative schedulers

Bruce