From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 10 01:46:49 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC9816A41C; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:46:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0935143D1F; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:46:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.34] (adsl-67-119-74-222.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.119.74.222]) by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j5A1kiZ6020225 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:46:44 -0700 Message-ID: <42A8F061.5020201@root.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:44:01 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephan Uphoff References: <200506091943.j59Jh8H3058277@repoman.freebsd.org> <692e14e0d72d5737f1c12f3c8def892d@baldwin.cx> <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm> In-Reply-To: <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: John Baldwin , 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:46:49 -0000 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