From owner-freebsd-current Thu Dec 20 12:36: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from iguana.aciri.org (iguana.aciri.org [192.150.187.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6282B37B417; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by iguana.aciri.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id fBKKa2m08943; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:36:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:36:02 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: John Baldwin Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Peter Wemm Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems. Message-ID: <20011220123602.H8230@iguana.aciri.org> References: <20011220112415.B8230@iguana.aciri.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 12:16:03PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: ... > Priority propagation will already handle things ok. We drop to pri_native > after we drop a lock (although if we still hold a contested lock we bump our > priority to the min(nativepri, highest priority of threads on contested locks > we hold and drop to nativepri after dropping the last contested lock). ok, thanks for the clarification > However, kthreads should tsleep() with their current priority, not PPAUSE. "current" meaning pri_level or pri_native ? What if one tries to tsleep() while holding a lock and so its pri_level is raised ? In the device polling code i did a tsleep on the "original" pri_level, but maybe pri_native is good enough. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message