Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:53:47 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: dufault@hda.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: LINUX clone? sched_yield? Message-ID: <199901302153.QAA20095@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199901302127.QAA09734@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Jan 30, 99 04:27:31 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> <<On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:54:36 -0500 (EST), Brian Feldman <green@unixhelp.org> said: > > > sched_yield() is a stub that informs you nicely that it doesn't exist :) > > Use the options: > > options "P1003_1B" > > options "_KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING" > > options "_KPOSIX_VERSION=199309L" > > Peter: is there any harm in enabling these features permanently? This bumps the version that the system says it is but I think the pieces are in place. If Bruce has any POSIX tests he can rebuild the system with POSIX_VERSION and _KPOSIX_VERSION set to 199309L and see what happens. This is the right thing to do for -current, and I have it turned on with a NO_KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING option in the patches I'm about to commit. Fixed-priority scheduling is broken in the SMP case and I'm planning on disabling both RTPRIO and _KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING on SMP unless one turns it on with RTPRIO_AND_SMP_ANYWAY. SMP and RTPRIO function but not correctly. Programs that assume that the presence of the header means the subsystem is present will fail on SMP the way they fail now. When my build world completes I'm planning on applying essentially the patches that are in my home directory on freefall in PATCHES.sched. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Safety critical systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901302153.QAA20095>