From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 21 14:41:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1939816A4CE for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:41:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCC4F43D39 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:41:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 63389 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Mar 2004 22:41:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.17?) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 21 Mar 2004 22:41:51 -0000 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:46:03 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040321154513.Q30715@pooker.samsco.home> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who can commit this.. kse vs ULE X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:41:54 -0000 This is a qualitative statement. What exactly is the problem, on a technical level? Scott On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > ULE makes KSE threaded processes slow, unresposive and soemtimes > unusably so. > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Scott Long wrote: > > > Thanks. What is the problem that is referred to in the email? This > > patch looks to be a hack. > > > > Scott > > > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > Scott here's the patch I mentioned... > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:30:45 -0800 > > > From: David O'Brien > > > To: Taku YAMAMOTO > > > Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] for SCHED_ULE & libpthread issue (was Re: I like > > > > > > SCHED_4BSD) > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:23:47AM +0900, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: > > > > > >>Until the problem is fully addressed, I will propose following patch > > >>to be applied. (the least intrusive one attached in the former message) > > > > > > > > > Do people think we should commit this? > > > > > > --- sched_ule.c.orig Fri Feb 13 05:24:48 2004 > > > +++ sched_ule.c Fri Feb 13 05:37:53 2004 > > > @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ > > > #define SCHED_INTERACTIVE(kg) \ > > > (sched_interact_score(kg) < SCHED_INTERACT_THRESH) > > > #define SCHED_CURR(kg, ke) \ > > > - (ke->ke_thread->td_priority != kg->kg_user_pri || \ > > > + (ke->ke_thread->td_priority < kg->kg_user_pri || \ > > > SCHED_INTERACTIVE(kg)) > > > > > > /* > > > @@ -1166,11 +1166,8 @@ > > > */ > > > if ((ke->ke_flags & KEF_ASSIGNED) == 0) { > > > if (TD_IS_RUNNING(td)) { > > > - if (td->td_proc->p_flag & P_SA) { > > > - kseq_load_rem(KSEQ_CPU(ke->ke_cpu), ke); > > > - setrunqueue(td); > > > - } else > > > - kseq_runq_add(KSEQ_SELF(), ke); > > > + kseq_load_rem(KSEQ_CPU(ke->ke_cpu), ke); > > > + setrunqueue(td); > > > _______________________________________________ > > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >