Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 18:29:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernel support for memory semaphores/locks... Message-ID: <199804082229.SAA03924@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199804082148.QAA08206@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Apr 8, 98 04:48:29 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, I don't mind renaming it, but I need it. (Unless sched_yield does > what I need.) sched_yield only does this: > need_resched(); In practice this works the way it should by the spec - it places the current process at the end of any equal priority processes. I've got a regression test that verifies that it works as it should for the fixed priority schedulers. It won't lower the priority so it is different from yield. Can you use "setpriority" to the lowest priority do the same thing as yield does now? (I haven't looked at the source so I don't know if it is changed from the man page) Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Safety critical systems, Agency approval 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?199804082229.SAA03924>