Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: struct thread Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304160931340.94222-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20030416022215.R76635-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > Is td_last_kse necessary? What about td_lastcpu? They don't really seem > to be used. td_last_kse and td_last_cpu were used in some experimental cpu affinity code that I gave up on (i.e. ran out of time). The idea was that the system would attempt to first schedule the thread on teh cpu it was last on , and if not available, on teh kse that it last ran on. I never removed the items but was hoping that someone, seeing the names there would feel tempted to implement affinity.. (Alfred mumbled about trying it). > > Also, td_locks is unused, although it would be nice to have it > implemented. I think ithis is a jhb field > > td_sleeplocks should be ifdefed with WITNESS. ditto > > Cheers, > Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0304160931340.94222-100000>