Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:36:07 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <20041214133539.T60504@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <200412141329.24069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200412141034.iBEAYRPu029498@repoman.freebsd.org> <200412141329.24069.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:34 am, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > jeff 2004-12-14 10:34:27 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern sched_ule.c > > Log: > > - In kseq_choose(), don't recalculate slice values for processes with a > > nice of 0. Doing so can cause an infinite loop because they should be > > running, but a nice -20 process could prevent them from doing so. > > - Add a new flag KEF_PRIOELEV to flag a thread that has had its priority > > elevated due to priority propagation. If a thread has had its > > priority elevated, we assume that it must go on the current queue and it > > must get a slice. > > - In sched_userret() if our priority was elevated and we shouldn't have > > a timeslice, yield here until we should. > > > > Found/Tested by: glebius > > _Please_ look at my priority inversions patch that I sent you a month ago! I > already have a flag for noting that a thread has bumped its priority and > would appreciate it if you would review this before making more conflicts. Resend please? I'm not sure I've seen it. > > -- > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041214133539.T60504>