Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:20:38 -0400 From: Stephan Uphoff <ups@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c Message-ID: <1118366438.27369.45017.camel@palm> In-Reply-To: <692e14e0d72d5737f1c12f3c8def892d@baldwin.cx> References: <200506091943.j59Jh8H3058277@repoman.freebsd.org> <692e14e0d72d5737f1c12f3c8def892d@baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:25, John Baldwin wrote: > On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > > > ups 2005-06-09 19:43:08 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern kern_switch.c sched_4bsd.c > > Log: > > Lots of whitespace cleanup. > > Fix for broken if condition. > > > > Submitted by: nate@ > > What was broken about the if test? The intention was that when > FULL_PREEMPTION was off, we only preempt if the destination thread is > an ithread or if the current thread is an idle priority thread. I was under the impression that we never preempt the idle thread but did not investigate closer. Is it save to preempt the idle thread on x86 when it does its ACPI C-state magic? > I think you've changed it so that we never preempt if the current thread > is an idle thread now, which is very bad. I took out explicit calls to > mi_switch() in the page zeroing thread in reliance on the behavior that > we always preempt an idle priority thread. I will take a look later today. If we can preempt the idle thread I am all for it. Stephan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1118366438.27369.45017.camel>