Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 22:49:44 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: some small patches Message-ID: <20030418224018.Y12417@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304171921370.54473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304171921370.54473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > I object to the sched_clock() change. We've discussed this on threads@ > > Yes and the clock code doesn't need to know about KSEs and it is of > ABSOLUTLY NO difference to the sched_clock() function if it derives the > thread from the KSE or derives the KSE from the thread. I mostly agree, but your argument would be better if statclock() didn't need to know about the KSE to determine the niceness. The niceness statistic is rotting anyway. It only covers one type of special scheduling. Statistics utilites generally are mostly missing support for the following complications: - rtprio/idprio scheduling - POSIX scheduling - KSE - alternative schedulers Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418224018.Y12417>