From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 19:11:49 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C82E106564A; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:11:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) Received: from swip.net (mailfe03.c2i.net [212.247.154.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B298FC0A; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:11:48 +0000 (UTC) X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50 Received: from [188.126.198.129] (account mc467741@c2i.net HELO laptop002.hselasky.homeunix.org) by mailfe03.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with ESMTPA id 48773972; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:11:46 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:09:12 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-STABLE; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4EE51CB5.1060505@FreeBSD.org> <201112121658.22864.hselasky@c2i.net> <201112121405.38322.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201112121405.38322.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Face: *nPdTl_}RuAI6^PVpA02T?$%Xa^>@hE0uyUIoiha$pC:9TVgl.Oq,NwSZ4V" =?iso-8859-1?q?=7CLR=2E+tj=7Dg5=0A=09=25V?=,x^qOs~mnU3]Gn; cQLv&.N>TrxmSFf+p6(30a/{)KUU!s}w\IhQBj}[g}bj0I3^glmC( =?iso-8859-1?q?=0A=09=3AAuzV9=3A=2EhESm-x4h240C=609=3Dw?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112122009.12557.hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: usb@freebsd.org, mdf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern_yield vs ukbd_yield X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:11:49 -0000 On Monday 12 December 2011 20:05:38 John Baldwin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > hselasky@ or someone else familiar with the various usb threads would > > > have to answer that. > > > > > > > > The problem is only during init() where the init thread has highest > > priority and that doesn't allow other threads to run even if the > > scheduler is > > running! > > Hmm, that should be fixed by lowering the relevant thread's priority. > Do you mean thread0 (the one doing all the SYSINIT's or thread we create > for init (pid 1) before it executes init? Yes, thread0. Correct! --HPS