Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:46:40 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems. Message-ID: <20011222003639.B4708-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011220124111.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > On 20-Dec-01 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 12:16:03PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > >> 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 ? > > pri_level. Calling tsleep() while holding a lock is a bug though. :) Unless > you are calling msleep() with a lock that will be released. > > > In the device polling code i did a tsleep on the "original" pri_level, > > but maybe pri_native is good enough. > > pri_level is more correct. I think pri_native is just an implementation detail which shouldn't be used or visible to threads. It used used by the priority propagation mechanism to hold the original pri_level. Threads should just use their original priority (or a different one if they want to temporarily change thier priority). Even pri_level probably shouldn't be used or visible to threads. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011222003639.B4708-100000>