From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 21:35:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5098016A4C0; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchhz01.viatech.com.cn (ip-167-164-97-218.anlai.com [218.97.164.167]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636A643F75; Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:34:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidxu@viatech.com.cn) Received: from viatech.com.cn (ip-240-1-168-192.rev.dyxnet.com [192.168.1.240]) by exchhz01.viatech.com.cn with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id RKXCRRBP; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:16:31 +0800 Message-ID: <3F4AE462.3040808@viatech.com.cn> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:38:58 +0800 From: David Xu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Roberson References: <20030826000750.N12093-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20030826000750.N12093-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "deischen@freebsd.org" cc: "threads@freebsd.org" cc: Sheldon Hearn cc: "freebsd-java@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: vmark hangs with libthr and libkse X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 04:35:05 -0000 Jeff Roberson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>Why do you need to do adjustrunqueue() in sched_prio? I also don't >>>understand the case in sched_switchout(). Can you please explain that? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>adjustrunqueue maintains kg_last_assigned and related things, when a >>thread's priority is changed, >>the thread might no longer can be in scheduler's run queue, instead it >>will be in ksegrp's runqueue, >>because there is higher priority thread, and a KSE it attached should be >>detached now, and the KSE >>will attach to another higher priority thread, ULE ignores this >>requirement, as I can understand, >>ULE is only aware of 1:1 between KSE and thread. >>It would be nice if scheduler interface is thread aware but not kse aware. >> >> > >Yes, wouldn't it be nice.. I don't think it should be ksegrp aware >either. oh well, it wasn't my design. > > SA process doesn't rely on kse and ksegrp because I introduced a kse_upcall structure, so I don't care someone drops kse or ksegrp and makes them as scheduler specific data structure. >Will you commit this patch? > > Will do.