From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 14 18:36:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CB516A4CE; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCDD43D46; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBEIa8DB016282; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:36:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)iBEIa8ad016259; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:36:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.chesapeake.net: jroberson owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:36:07 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200412141329.24069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20041214133539.T60504@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <200412141034.iBEAYRPu029498@repoman.freebsd.org> <200412141329.24069.jhb@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Jeff Roberson cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:12 -0000 On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 14 December 2004 05:34 am, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > jeff 2004-12-14 10:34:27 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern sched_ule.c > > Log: > > - In kseq_choose(), don't recalculate slice values for processes with a > > nice of 0. Doing so can cause an infinite loop because they should be > > running, but a nice -20 process could prevent them from doing so. > > - Add a new flag KEF_PRIOELEV to flag a thread that has had its priority > > elevated due to priority propagation. If a thread has had its > > priority elevated, we assume that it must go on the current queue and it > > must get a slice. > > - In sched_userret() if our priority was elevated and we shouldn't have > > a timeslice, yield here until we should. > > > > Found/Tested by: glebius > > _Please_ look at my priority inversions patch that I sent you a month ago! I > already have a flag for noting that a thread has bumped its priority and > would appreciate it if you would review this before making more conflicts. Resend please? I'm not sure I've seen it. > > -- > John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org >