Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:38:54 -0400 From: Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: sched_userret priority adjustment patch for sched_4bsd Message-ID: <1096468734.3733.1177.camel@palm.tree.com> In-Reply-To: <200409281056.00870.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <1096133353.53798.17613.camel@palm.tree.com> <200409271443.22667.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <1096320486.3733.58.camel@palm.tree.com> <200409281056.00870.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 10:56, John Baldwin wrote: > If A has a priority boost from tsleep() this is intentional, however. The > priroity boosts from tsleep() are _supposed_ to do this so as to favor > interactive tasks. Note that if you add the code to always raise td_priority > while in the kernel as below you may end up defeating this well-known feature > of the 4BSD scheduler. OK - you and Julian convinced me that this is a feature that I should have known about. Without test cases or interactivity benchmarks discussions if this is still a desirable feature are probably useless. I will revisit the this once test cases materialize or I have time to think about a benchmark (Not likely anytime soon). Stephan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1096468734.3733.1177.camel>