Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:02:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/ddb db_ps.c src/sys/i386/i386 genassym.c Message-ID: <20030410160146.H37530-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <200304101948.MAA90527@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > src/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 src/sys/ > In-Reply-To: <20030410152200.M37530-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> > Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304101242270.90002-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > 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. > > It is a thread property. > It is "what CPU am I running on now.." > It is set when you are switched in and unset when you are switched out. > Between these two points you can not switch KSE so the two are > effectively the same. The only difference is that code that has a thread > pointer has to get it from the KSE through indirection, where it can get > it from the thread directly. Note that ALL cases of it being accessed > did it via the thread pointer Ok. > > There is NO support for locking a KSE to a CPU yet. That is a completely > different question. There is in ULE. > > > > > 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?20030410160146.H37530-100000>