Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: some small patches Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304180925160.54473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20030418224018.Y12417@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > 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 It doesn't, the patch also gets the niceness without going via the KSE. the current code says: ke->ke_ksegrp->kg_nice the patched code says: td->td_ksegrp->kg_nice which gives the same thing. > 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 yep. That last one can be fixed easier in a running kernel, but becomes very hard to fix with coredumps. (coredumps can't call methods). > > Bruce >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0304180925160.54473-100000>