From owner-freebsd-alpha Fri Sep 6 8: 2:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001A337B401 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail17.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A95543E3B for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:02:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 32413 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2002 15:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail17.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 6 Sep 2002 15:02:41 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g86F2fBv014836; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:02:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3D7806D1.C87A9A6A@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:02:41 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Terry Lambert Subject: Re: ithread preemption Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, Andrew Gallatin Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 06-Sep-2002 Terry Lambert wrote: > Andrew Gallatin wrote: >> John Baldwin writes: >> > Solaris doesn't run on alpha, but it also a bit different in its approach. >> > I do wonder if there is a way we can violate an assumption in PAL due to >> > migration though. That is, a thread could return to PAL on a different >> > CPU than the one the interrupt was originally sent to. This might explain >> > why only SMP has problems. >> > >> >> Hey ... I think you have it on the nose! That makes the most sense >> I've heard yet. >> >> Do we have any way to bind a thread to a cpu? > > Alfred has some patches. That are just as tore up by KSE as mine are, probably more so. > IMO, threads should not be so bound to a CPU, as a migration event > should be an exception, rather than the rule, and always handled > by the scheduler. Yes, we all know this and plan to do this when the scheduler isn't under so much upheaval (read 6.0 when KSE finishes breaking^Wchanging things). -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message