Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:31:45 -0400 From: Stephan Uphoff <ups@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c Message-ID: <1118370705.27369.45598.camel@palm> In-Reply-To: <42A8F061.5020201@root.org> References: <200506091943.j59Jh8H3058277@repoman.freebsd.org> <692e14e0d72d5737f1c12f3c8def892d@baldwin.cx> <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm> <42A8F061.5020201@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 21:44, Nate Lawson wrote: > Stephan Uphoff wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:25, John Baldwin wrote: > >>On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > >>>ups 2005-06-09 19:43:08 UTC > >>> > >>> FreeBSD src repository > >>> > >>> Modified files: > >>> sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c > >>> Log: > >>> Lots of whitespace cleanup. > >>> Fix for broken if condition. > >>> > >>> Submitted by: nate@ > >> > >>What was broken about the if test? The intention was that when > >>FULL_PREEMPTION was off, we only preempt if the destination thread is > >>an ithread or if the current thread is an idle priority thread. > > > > I was under the impression that we never preempt the idle thread but did > > not investigate closer. > > > > Is it save to preempt the idle thread on x86 when it does its ACPI > > C-state magic? > > I agree that the idle thread should be pre-empted before the Cx sleep. Sorry - for the confusion. Interrupts are disabled before calling acpi_cpu_idle so this should not be a problem. I will restore the original test. Thanks Stephan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1118370705.27369.45598.camel>