Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:57:44 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG, Jake Burkholder <jburkholder0829@home.com> Subject: Re: that vm diff now makes it into single user mode. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105011221040.31299-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010430120119.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > On 29-Apr-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Jake Burkholder <jburkholder0829@home.com> [010428 23:10] wrote: > >> > >> i386/i386/vm_machdep.c: > >> > >> the mtx_trylock in vm_page_zero_idle is unnecessary, the lock is > >> already held. This whole thing needs to be non-blocking if its > >> going to be called from the idle loop, but I'm not sure that > >> that's still possible. Its currently commented out. > > > > Ok, should be fixed. I guess we now know where it could have been > > useful to be able to spin on a sleeplock, ie not worry about > > idle getting stuck on a runqueue/sleepqueue. > > Having the idle process hold locks that other threads block on can really start > wreaking havoc when you throw priority propagation into the mix. It would be > best to push the page zeroing off into a very low priority kernel thread or > something. Why would that do more than move the problem (if any)? Priority propagation should allow the low-priority idle process to become high prority so that it can release its locks as necessary just as well as it allows this for any other low-priority process. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0105011221040.31299-100000>