From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Nov 23 14:54:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA17101 for smp-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from clem.systemsix.com (clem.systemsix.com [198.99.86.131]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA17095 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:53:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clem.systemsix.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA20073; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:53:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199611232253.PAA20073@clem.systemsix.com> X-Authentication-Warning: clem.systemsix.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 From: Steve Passe To: dg@Root.COM cc: freebsd-smp@freefall.freebsd.org, Peter Wemm Subject: Re: SMP -current merge In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:44:48 PST." <199611232244.OAA01965@root.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:53:50 -0700 Sender: owner-smp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, >>If there are 2 CPUS smp_kickoff() creates 2 idleprocs, and thus there >>are 2 possible processess that can be in the idleq. > > Oh...I didn't realize that it was handled this way. This is going to need >to be re-thought. The idle processes should probably not be on any of the >queues and handled as a special case. Otherwise they will compete for CPU >with other idprio processes, and that would be bad. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ perhaps I'm incorrect in my thinking here, I thought the idleq was strictly for the cpuidle[ NCPU ] processes. What other "idle" processes are there? -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | FreeBSD -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzHe7tEAAAEEAM274wAEEdP+grIrV6UtBt54FB5ufifFRA5ujzflrvlF8aoE 04it5BsUPFi3jJLfvOQeydbegexspPXL6kUejYt2OeptHuroIVW5+y2M2naTwqtX WVGeBP6s2q/fPPAS+g+sNZCpVBTbuinKa/C4Q6HJ++M9AyzIq5EuvO0a8Rr9AAUR tBlTdGV2ZSBQYXNzZSA8c21wQGNzbi5uZXQ+ =ds99 -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----