Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 05:51:17 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems. Message-ID: <20011221055117.A15321@iguana.aciri.org> In-Reply-To: <20011222003639.B4708-100000@gamplex.bde.org> References: <XFMail.011220124111.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20011222003639.B4708-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:46:40AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > 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. the original priority should be somewhere and accessible, either directly or through some function. Otherwise how do we know what to pass to tsleep() ? In any case I wonder if this is a bug new in -current; -stable uses three separate data structures for realtime, user and idle tasks so even specifying the wrong priority in tsleep should not cause crossing classes there. -current has only one array, hence the chance of doing the wrong thing. cheers luigi 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?20011221055117.A15321>