From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul  8 15:25:30 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F0C37B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Jul 2003 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD85C43F93
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Jul 2003 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([12.233.125.100])
          by attbi.com (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <20030708222529015007as45e>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:25:29 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24243
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307081517250.22588-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: SMP and setrunnable()- scheduler 4bsd
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 22:25:30 -0000

It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable thread.

If the processors are halting in the idle loop however, it may take
quite a while for the new work to be noticed..
(possibly up to milliseconds I think)

Is there a mechanism to send an IPI to particular processors?
or is it just broadcast?  


I think we would be better served to alter idle_proc(void *dummy)
(or maybe choosethread()) to increment or decrement a count
of idle processors (atomically of course) so that 
setrunnable (or it's lower parts) can send that IPI
and get the idle processor into actioan as soon as a thread is
available.

I have not seen any such code but maybe I'm wrong....