Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:08:22 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: threads/118910: Multithreading problem Message-ID: <476B7476.3010509@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712210243120.20251@sea.ntplx.net> References: <200712210700.lBL707MZ002071@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712210228030.20251@sea.ntplx.net> <476B6E35.508@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0712210243120.20251@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen wrote: > I don't think it is as big a change as you think it is. We already > have several layers of priorities (interrupt, time-share, idle, ?). > All threads belong to these classes. As long as priority inheritence > works, there should be no problems. The problems seem to occur when > we try to inject artificial priorities into threads, like using > msleep(). I think we are better off just letting threads run based > on their own base priority and whatever their inherited priority is. > For test purpose, you may try to ignore thread priority parameter in msleep(), I didn't test this, but it does change the FreeBSD behavior. I don't know any side effect since I am unable to test all applications in the world, maybe you can start a project to hack it ? Regards, David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?476B7476.3010509>