From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 25 18:00:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F01216A4CE for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:00:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (duchess.speedfactory.net [66.23.201.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEB9F43D2D for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:00:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) Received: (qmail 5102 invoked by uid 89); 25 Sep 2004 18:00:22 -0000 Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (66.23.201.84) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 2004 18:00:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 5097 invoked by uid 89); 25 Sep 2004 18:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO palm.tree.com) (66.23.216.49) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 25 Sep 2004 18:00:21 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.tree.com [127.0.0.1]) by palm.tree.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8PI0Kmt093708; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:00:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) From: Stephan Uphoff To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <1095529353.31297.1192.camel@palm.tree.com> References: <1095468747.31297.241.camel@palm.tree.com> <1095529353.31297.1192.camel@palm.tree.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1096135220.53798.17754.camel@palm.tree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:00:20 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: scheduler (sched_4bsd) questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:00:23 -0000 On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 13:42, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > On Fri, 2004-09-17 at 21:20, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Stephan Uphoff wrote: > > >I am also stomped by the special case of adding a thread X with better > > >priority than the current thread to the runqueue if they belong to the > > >same ksegroup. In this case both kg_last_assigned and kg_avail_opennings > > >might be zero and setrunqueue() will not call sched_add(). > > >Because of this it looks like the current thread will neither be > > >preempted not will TDF_NEEDRESCHED be set to force rescheduling at the > > >kernel boundary. > > >This situation should resolve itself at the next sched_switch - however > > >this might take a long time. (Especially if essential interrupt threads > > >are blocked by mutexes held by thread X) > > > > > > > you are correct. I am not yet preempting a running thread with a lesser > > priority if they are siblings > > (unless there is a slot available) Thsi is not becasue I don't want to > > do it, but simply because it has not been done yet.. > > we did have NO preemption, so having "some" preemption is still better > > than where we were. > > Special case code to check curthread for a preemption could be done but > > at the moment the decision code for > > whether to preempt or not is in maybe_preempt() and I don't want to > > duplicate that. it is on th edrawing board though. > > The other thing is, that even if we should be able to preempt a running > > thread, there is no guarantee that it is on THIS > > CPU. It may be on another CPU and that gets nasty in a hurry. > > Yes .. this could get nasty. > This happens when the thread is bound to another cpu or someone changed > thr_concurrency - otherwise the current thread must be a sibling right ? > > Maybe something brutal like: > if ((curthread->td_ksegrp == kg) && > (td->td_priority > curthread->td_priority)) > curthread->td_flags |= TDF_NEEDRESCHED; > > in setrunqueue for > the else case of "if (kg->kg_avail_opennings > 0)" > would do the trick (without preemption) for the easy but probably more > common cases? > > Maybe I can find some time next week to think about a clean > fix. I find it always helpful having a small task in mind while reading > source code. I wrote a fix that should cover all cases. However I would like to test it a little bit before posting the patch. Is there any multi-threaded kernel torture program that you can recommend? Thanks Stephan