From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb 21 06:04:44 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D0EA516A4CE; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:04:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 544B343D48; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:04:44 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	j1L64g5P026584;	Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:04:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:04:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <42193303.2090500@elischer.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0502210103140.29654-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: thread accounting in libpthread
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:04:45 -0000

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Julian Elischer wrote:

> David Xu wrote:
> > Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> since it will be the only thread in the queue.  If N threads
> >> complete (assuming they are all at the same priority) then
> >> the first thread pulled from the completed list will be
> >> run first since it will be the first thread added to the
> >> run queue.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > note that kernel adds completed thread in reversed order.
>
> I guess we could fix that easily with a tail pointer.

I don't know that it matters much.  With the work-around I posted,
it made matters even worse for the test case.  I'm not against
you changing the ordering in the kenel if you think that is
best.

-- 
DE