Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:58:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn> Cc: "threads@freebsd.org" <threads@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: vmark hangs with libthr and libkse Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0308252141330.27218-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <3F4AE462.3040808@viatech.com.cn>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Xu wrote: > 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. Well, this is not quite true. without KSEGRPS there is no possibility to make both process scope and system scope threads. process scope threads require a rendevous structure of some sort and it can not be the process. The fact that the 1:1 threads don't do this is why they can not do process-scope threads and system scope threads but are system scope only. MACH didn't have the additional concept of the KSEGRP and the contortions they had to go to to try do process scope threads (they eventually gave up) (I was a MACH user at that time) was incredible. > > >Will you commit this patch? > > > > > Will do. > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0308252141330.27218-100000>