From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 8 19: 2:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (ip-17-201.prc.primenet.com [207.218.17.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A74C14CAB for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:02:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Received: from psf.Pinyon.ORG (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by psf.Pinyon.ORG (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA00920 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:56:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rcarter@psf.Pinyon.ORG) Message-Id: <199904090156.SAA00920@psf.Pinyon.ORG> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.3 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: scheduling queues in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:41:03 MST." <199904082341.QAA15598@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 18:56:58 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG % If nobody xxxx not to many people have objections, I would be happy to % remove the realtime & idle queue junk and replace it with the locked % priority concept. ( Cavet: the priority would only be locked while % running in user mode, I wouldn't mess with the supervisor sleep priority % override mechanism ). This would make idle processes useful again. % I would also be happy if someone else did this... but if nobody else % wants to, I can :-) Why isn't this as significant a change as Peter's changes that perhaps go a long way to fixing the problem? There is getting to be *a lot* of stuff that wants multiple realtime priorities, and it seems short sighted to just say ah crap we can't do that. Russell % % -Matt % Matthew Dillon % % % % %To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org %with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message % To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message