From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 22:18:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D4F16A4BF; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:18:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchhz01.viatech.com.cn (ip-167-164-97-218.anlai.com [218.97.164.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF2D43FD7; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:18:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidxu@viatech.com.cn) Received: from viatech.com.cn (ip-240-1-168-192.rev.dyxnet.com [192.168.1.240]) by exchhz01.viatech.com.cn with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id RKXCRRGG; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:00:05 +0800 Message-ID: <3F4AEE98.4080607@viatech.com.cn> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:22:32 +0800 From: David Xu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "deischen@freebsd.org" cc: "threads@freebsd.org" cc: "freebsd-java@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: vmark hangs with libthr and libkse X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:18:45 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: >On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Xu wrote: > > > >>Jeff Roberson wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>Why do you need to do adjustrunqueue() in sched_prio? I also don't >>>>>understand the case in sched_switchout(). Can you please explain that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>adjustrunqueue maintains kg_last_assigned and related things, when a >>>>thread's priority is changed, >>>>the thread might no longer can be in scheduler's run queue, instead it >>>>will be in ksegrp's runqueue, >>>>because there is higher priority thread, and a KSE it attached should be >>>>detached now, and the KSE >>>>will attach to another higher priority thread, ULE ignores this >>>>requirement, as I can understand, >>>>ULE is only aware of 1:1 between KSE and thread. >>>>It would be nice if scheduler interface is thread aware but not kse aware. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Yes, wouldn't it be nice.. I don't think it should be ksegrp aware >>>either. oh well, it wasn't my design. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>SA process doesn't rely on kse and ksegrp because I introduced a >>kse_upcall structure, >>so I don't care someone drops kse or ksegrp and makes them as scheduler >>specific data structure. >> >> > >Well, this is not quite true. >without KSEGRPS there is no possibility to make both >process scope and system scope threads. > >process scope threads require a rendevous structure of some sort >and it can not be the process. > >The fact that the 1:1 threads don't do this is why they can not >do process-scope threads and system scope threads but are system scope >only. > > OK, I just don't want to manage kse, what I want is to set a concurrent level for a ksegrp, for example, a process-scope thread's group has a concurrent level equals number of cpu, so please don't force me to create and destroy kse, make them transparent. >MACH didn't have the additional concept of the KSEGRP and the >contortions they had to go to to try do process scope threads (they >eventually gave up) (I was a MACH user at that time) was incredible. > > > >>>Will you commit this patch? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Will do. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list >>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads >>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >