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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA49u4uh/sekCrtYGBMuCsGQEAAAAA>