From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Dec 22  0:26:14 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 82C8837B417; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26681;
	Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:26:07 +1100
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 19:26:12 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender:  <bde@gamplex.bde.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: <current@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>,
	Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>
Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems.
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011221090705.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20011222191517.M7478-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, John Baldwin wrote:

> On 21-Dec-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >> the original priority should be somewhere and accessible,
> >> either directly or through some function. Otherwise how
> >> do we know what to pass to tsleep() ?
> >
> > It's whatever the thread set itself.  There is no good way of setting
> > this either (vm_pagezero() and poll_idle() hack it into
> > td->td_ksegrp->kg_pri).  Userland would use rtprio(2) instead.
> > Unfortunately, this gives priorities in different units than the ones
> > for tsleep().
>
> pri_level is the current priority of the thread.  The actual priority level is
> going to move back into the thread and out of the KSE group so that tsleep and
> priority propagation work properly, but pri_native, pri_user, and nice will
> stay in the KSE group.  The "normal" priorities for tsleep() are just a subset

This will make encapsulating priority stuff on a struct more obviously wrong.

> of the priorities available to a thread.  Thus, they are using the same unit,
> but perhaps a wider range.

They are offset by PRI_MIN_IDLE too, due to vestiges of the rtprio()
misimplementation.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message