Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 03:12:09 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads and the scheduler Message-ID: <38441379.D8CD6CCD@newsguy.com> References: <3842DBB5.8AFC9B6@newsguy.com> <199911292022.MAA08694@apollo.backplane.com> <3843D43E.4F40A642@newsguy.com> <199911301732.JAA25846@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I don't think you have anything to worry about. A thread is going to go > to sleep if it has nothing to do even if all the I/O is asynchronous > (i.e. thread is mixing cpu and I/O bound elements). It isn't the I/O > that raises the priority, it is the act of the process going to sleep > that raises the priority. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. It is my impression that the scheduler will not see these threads going to sleep, it will only see a process use all it's quanta instead of going to sleep, because the process always get control back from the kernel whenever a blocking operation happens, and in the end, a cpu-bound thread will finish up the quanta the i/o-bound threads didn't. That's one thing people have been asking for, that the kernel never puts a process to sleep but instead return control to the process as long as it has quanta remaining. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) who is as social as a wampas dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38441379.D8CD6CCD>