Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:36:17 +0200
From:      "Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com>
To:        "'John Baldwin'" <jhb@freebsd.org>, <cvs-src@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_4bsd.c
Message-ID:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA49u4uh/sekCrtYGBMuCsGQEAAAAA@telia.com>
In-Reply-To: <200407132049.i6DKnDMv076454@repoman.freebsd.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

John Baldwin wrote:

>   Set TDF_NEEDRESCHED when a higher priority thread is scheduled in
>   sched_add() rather than just doing it in sched_wakeup().  The old
>   ithread preemption code used to set NEEDRESCHED=20
> unconditionally if it
>   didn't preempt which masked this bug in SCHED_4BSD.

Does this mean it should be safe to turn preemption back on in param.h =
(for
a kernel using SHED_4BSD)? Or is this not related to the hard hangs =
reported
over the last week?

/Daniel




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA49u4uh/sekCrtYGBMuCsGQEAAAAA>