From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 8 13:23:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C5114F47 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:23:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA14426; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:21:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:21:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199904082021.NAA14426@apollo.backplane.com> To: "John S. Dyson" Cc: aron@cs.rice.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scheduling queues in FreeBSD References: <199904081457.JAA00705@y.dyson.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Matthew Dillon said: :> :> The 'idle' and 'realtime' queues were hacked in I don't know when, but :> they don't work very well... there are a number of situations that can :> cause machine lockups. Frankly, I'd like to see both ripped out completely :> and a better solution put in later on. :> :I agree -- they create messy LL code, and as you say, just don't work correctly. :-- :John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, :dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid :jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. One thing we could do that would accomplish virtually the same goals would be to 'lock' the cpu priority. This would be a great temporary solution. If the cpu priority is locked into queue 0, we are effectively equivalent to the idle queue. If the cpu priority is locked into queue 31, we are effectively equivalent to the realtime queue. We then reduce the priority range that 'normal' processes are allowed to obtain such that they fall into queues 1-30. Poof, done. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message