From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 29 14:39:01 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839DA16A4CF
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:39:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (duchess.speedfactory.net
	[66.23.201.84])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E793643D48
	for <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:39:00 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ups@tree.com)
Received: (qmail 5008 invoked by uid 89); 29 Sep 2004 14:38:56 -0000
Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (66.23.201.84)
  by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 29 Sep 2004 14:38:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 4937 invoked by uid 89); 29 Sep 2004 14:38:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO palm.tree.com) (66.23.216.49)
  by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 29 Sep 2004 14:38:55 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.tree.com [127.0.0.1])
	by palm.tree.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8TEcsmt015285;
	Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:38:54 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from ups@tree.com)
From: Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200409281056.00870.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References: <1096133353.53798.17613.camel@palm.tree.com>
	 <200409271443.22667.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
	 <1096320486.3733.58.camel@palm.tree.com>
	 <200409281056.00870.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1096468734.3733.1177.camel@palm.tree.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:38:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: sched_userret priority adjustment patch for sched_4bsd
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:39:01 -0000

On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 10:56, John Baldwin wrote:
> If A has a priority boost from tsleep() this is intentional, however.  The 
> priroity boosts from tsleep() are _supposed_ to do this so as to favor 
> interactive tasks.  Note that if you add the code to always raise td_priority 
> while in the kernel as below you may end up defeating this well-known feature 
> of the 4BSD scheduler.

OK - you and Julian convinced me that this is a feature that I should
have known about. Without test cases or interactivity benchmarks
discussions if this is still a desirable feature are probably useless.
I will revisit the this once test cases materialize or I have time to
think about a benchmark (Not likely anytime soon).

	Stephan