Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:23:39 -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: <20030410152200.M37530-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20030410151504.R37530-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > 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 Sorry, moving the information to the thread seems wrong. I'm not sure I think it is such a good idea to so rigorously hide the kse structure. It may be nice to limit its scope but I think it is not so necessary and it leads to hacks like this where information is stored in a structure where it does not logically make sense. > 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?20030410152200.M37530-100000>