Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:36:02 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: vm_zeropage priority problems. Message-ID: <20011220123602.H8230@iguana.aciri.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.011220121603.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20011220112415.B8230@iguana.aciri.org> <XFMail.011220121603.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 12:16:03PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: ... > Priority propagation will already handle things ok. We drop to pri_native > after we drop a lock (although if we still hold a contested lock we bump our > priority to the min(nativepri, highest priority of threads on contested locks > we hold and drop to nativepri after dropping the last contested lock). ok, thanks for the clarification > However, kthreads should tsleep() with their current priority, not PPAUSE. "current" meaning pri_level or pri_native ? What if one tries to tsleep() while holding a lock and so its pri_level is raised ? In the device polling code i did a tsleep on the "original" pri_level, but maybe pri_native is good enough. cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011220123602.H8230>