Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:23:25 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@Root.COM> To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: freebsd-smp@freefall.freebsd.org, Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com> Subject: Re: SMP -current merge Message-ID: <199611232323.PAA02050@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:53:50 MST." <199611232253.PAA20073@clem.systemsix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>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? "man idprio" idprio is a compliment to rtprio. It was an idea I had back when the rtprio code was first submitted. I've always hated "nice" because it was never possible to say "run this process _only_ if nothing else is runnable". -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611232323.PAA02050>