From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 18 0:44:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za (oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za [196.7.114.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259E814DBF for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:44:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbezuide@oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za) Received: (from rbezuide@localhost) by oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.0) id KAA05670; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:43:18 +0200 (SAT) From: Reinier Bezuidenhout Message-Id: <200001180843.KAA05670@oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za> Subject: Re: Preemptiveness of FreeBSD threads In-Reply-To: from ROGIER MULHUIJZEN at "Jan 17, 2000 4:39:22 pm" To: MULHUIJZEN@PZH.NL (ROGIER MULHUIJZEN) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:43:18 +0200 (SAT) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >OK, with everyones help (well, waiting for the right time of day ;-)), > I > >was able to reproduce this. The initial threads last active time was > >not getting initialized to a sane value, causing negative > computations > >of the threads timeslice depending on what time of day it was. Funny > >thing was that I added this change several times, but each time I > somehow > >convinced myself that it wasn't needed. > > >Try this patch - you may have to hand apply it as my sources are not > >yet up to date with the last round of changes that Jason made. > > >Dan Eischen > >eischen@vigrid.com Will this patch be patched back to RELENG_3 too ?? We have quite a few applications that use threads :) Reinier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message