From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May  9 19:07:31 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2FE16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  9 May 2004 19:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D8A43D5A
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  9 May 2004 19:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <20040510020730015007q7b3e>; Mon, 10 May 2004 02:07:30 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA26031
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 9 May 2004 19:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 19:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405091855450.24403-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: RFC for small change to 4bsd scheduler..
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 02:07:31 -0000



in the following code:
struct kse *
sched_choose(void)
{
        struct kse *ke;
        struct runq *rq;

#ifdef SMP
        struct kse *kecpu;
            
        rq = &runq;
        ke = runq_choose(&runq);
        kecpu = runq_choose(&runq_pcpu[PCPU_GET(cpuid)]);

        if (ke == NULL ||
            (kecpu != NULL && 
**>>>>      kecpu->ke_thread->td_priority <
                ke->ke_thread->td_priority)) {
                     CTR2(KTR_4BSD, "choosing kse %p from pcpu runq %d", kecpu,
                     PCPU_GET(cpuid));
                ke = kecpu;
                rq = &runq_pcpu[PCPU_GET(cpuid)];
        } else {
                CTR1(KTR_4BSD, "choosing kse %p from main runq", ke);
        }



I think it would be better to have "<=" instead of "<"

I think the current code will make processes of equal priority thrash
processors if one is on the pcpu list and teh other is on the general
queue. as it is the pcpu process will only ever run when there is
nothing of teh same priority to run..

maybe there should be code to give such a case a 50/50 chance or
something?