Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:39:13 +0200 From: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent thread changes Message-ID: <20001015123913.A25237@speedy.gsinet> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001014234955.25430B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>; from eischen@vigrid.com on Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 12:20:11AM -0400 References: <200010142000.e9EK0hn47439@vashon.polstra.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001014234955.25430B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 00:20 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 jdp@polstra.com wrote:
>
> > (6) If a thread whose policy or priority has been modified is
> > a running thread or is runnable, runnable thread [sic] it then
> > becomes the tail of the thread list for its new priority.
>
> Unless it holds a priority protection or inheritence mutex, in
> which case it gets added to the head of the thread list for its
> new priority. This case is often forgotten (see 13.6.1.2).
Is this what was discussed some time ago as a DoS mechanism for
Windows apps? Talk was about "calling setprio() in your running
time slice will make you run again right away and starve anyone
else" so it turned out to look like some modern kind of
cooperative multitasking where one doesn't have to grant
resources to others if one doesn't feel like it? Something good
to have if you feel like getting all the CPU cycles ...
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net
--
If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above
ask your parents or an adult to help you.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001015123913.A25237>