Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:39:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: struct thread Message-ID: <20030416123901.W85450@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304160931340.94222-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304160931340.94222-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: : : :On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: : :> Is td_last_kse necessary? What about td_lastcpu? They don't really seem :> to be used. :td_last_kse and td_last_cpu were used in some experimental cpu affinity :code that I gave up on (i.e. ran out of time). :The idea was that the system would attempt to first schedule :the thread on teh cpu it was last on , and if not available, on teh kse :that it last ran on. I never removed the items but was hoping that :someone, seeing the names there would feel tempted to :implement affinity.. (Alfred mumbled about trying it). Yea, I do remember Alfred offering up a patch that implemented affinity. There was some debate on arch@ perhaps regarding it. : :> :> Also, td_locks is unused, although it would be nice to have it :> implemented. : :I think ithis is a jhb field : :> :> td_sleeplocks should be ifdefed with WITNESS. : :ditto : :> :> Cheers, :> Jeff :> :> _______________________________________________ :> 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" : -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030416123901.W85450>