Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:44:01 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Stephan Uphoff <ups@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c Message-ID: <42A8F061.5020201@root.org> In-Reply-To: <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm> References: <200506091943.j59Jh8H3058277@repoman.freebsd.org> <692e14e0d72d5737f1c12f3c8def892d@baldwin.cx> <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephan Uphoff wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:25, John Baldwin wrote: >>On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>ups 2005-06-09 19:43:08 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c >>> Log: >>> Lots of whitespace cleanup. >>> Fix for broken if condition. >>> >>> Submitted by: nate@ >> >>What was broken about the if test? The intention was that when >>FULL_PREEMPTION was off, we only preempt if the destination thread is >>an ithread or if the current thread is an idle priority thread. > > I was under the impression that we never preempt the idle thread but did > not investigate closer. > > Is it save to preempt the idle thread on x86 when it does its ACPI > C-state magic? I agree that the idle thread should be pre-empted before the Cx sleep. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42A8F061.5020201>