Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:16:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/ddb db_ps.c src/sys/i386/i386 genassym.c kern_thread.c sched_4bsd.c sched_ule.c subr_smp.c subr_witness.c src/sys/ Message-ID: <20030410151504.R37530-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030410134111.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 10-Apr-2003 Julian Elischer wrote: > > julian 2003/04/10 10:35:45 PDT > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/ddb db_ps.c > > sys/i386/i386 genassym.c > > sys/kern init_main.c kern_fork.c kern_mutex.c > > kern_proc.c kern_thread.c sched_4bsd.c > > sched_ule.c subr_smp.c subr_witness.c > > sys/sys proc.h > > Log: > > Move the _oncpu entry from the KSE to the thread. > > The entry in the KSE still exists but it's purpose will change a bit > > when we add the ability to lock a KSE to a cpu. > > Why not add a ke_pincpu to hold the bound CPU? Since KSE's are in > theory a kind of virtual CPU abstraction the thread really seems to > be the wrong place for this information. > Er, this seems wrong to me. Regardless, please but the bound cpu information in the scheduler specific data. I already have an entry for it in ULE. Cheers, Jeff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030410151504.R37530-100000>