Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:16:46 -0400 From: Ben Kelly <ben@wanderview.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Adam McDougall <mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Artem Belevich <fbsdlist@src.cx> Subject: Re: [patch] zfs livelock and thread priorities Message-ID: <A0A6EFA4-1827-4BCF-8A45-C65298EC5A55@wanderview.com> In-Reply-To: <200905181129.51526.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <08D7DC2A-68BE-47B6-8D5D-5DE6B48F87E5@wanderview.com> <20090516031332.GG82547@egr.msu.edu> <5D988481-068A-4AB3-952E-255BEA1D9DA7@wanderview.com> <200905181129.51526.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 18, 2009, at 11:29 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday 16 May 2009 12:40:44 pm Ben Kelly wrote: >> 1) It changes the kproc(9) API by adding a kproc_create_priority() >> function that allows you to set the priority of the newly created >> thread. I'm not sure how people feel about this. > > Actually, I almost think we should just add a priority argument to > each of the > routines that creates a new kthread/kproc. Perhaps allow a priority > of 0 to > let the thread run with the default priority. Hmm, it looks like > kthreads > default to running with whatever thread0 runs at (PVM) which is > probably not > really ideal. Having an explicit priority for every kthread would > probably > be best. Most kthreads should probably be at PZERO by default I > think. If this approach was taken would it make sense to use a flag to indicate "use the specified priority" since 0 is a valid priority value? Thanks. - Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A0A6EFA4-1827-4BCF-8A45-C65298EC5A55>