From owner-freebsd-smp Sat Nov 23 15:25:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA18032 for smp-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA18020 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.6/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA02050; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:23:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611232323.PAA02050@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Steve Passe cc: freebsd-smp@freefall.freebsd.org, Peter Wemm Subject: Re: SMP -current merge In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:53:50 MST." <199611232253.PAA20073@clem.systemsix.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@Root.COM Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:23:25 -0800 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? "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