From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 23 00:11:42 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A804616A4CE; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:11:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9BDAA43D5E; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:11:42 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP
          id <20040623001137013009l4m7e>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:11:37 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA59095;
	Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040622225726.GA26611@freefall.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406221708100.54870-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ithread priority question...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:11:42 -0000



On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Bosko Milekic wrote:

> 
>   I'm obviously talking nonsense below.  Sorry.
> 
>   The real explanation is that they are put on a runqueue when executed:
> 
>         if (TD_AWAITING_INTR(td)) {
>                 CTR2(KTR_INTR, "%s: setrunqueue %d", __func__, p->p_pid);
>                 TD_CLR_IWAIT(td);
>                 setrunqueue(td);
>                 if (do_switch &&
>                     (ctd->td_critnest == 1) ) {
> ...
> 
>   Sorry again!

yes.. the question is.. does it make sense in a world with multiple
schedulers to multiply set the priority of each ithread to
(inumber * RQ_PPQ)?

It happens to work with 4bsd and probably with ULE
but it wouldn't make a lot of sense with (say) a monte-carlo scheduler
that may not have run queues as such (such as Luigi did) or any
scheduler for which RQ_PPQ was not a constant.


> 
>   -bosko
> 
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, John Baldwin wrote:
> ...
> >> That was the intention.  One question though, if the ithreads aren't on the
> >> system run queues then which run queues are they on?
> >
> >aren't they run from the interupt?
> 
>   Not always.  They have to be put on a runqueue if they block on a
>   mutex, say.
> 
>   -Bosko
> 
>