Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:59:00 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_4bsd.c Message-ID: <200407141059.00907.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA49u4uh/sekCrtYGBMuCsGQEAAAAA@telia.com> References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA49u4uh/sekCrtYGBMuCsGQEAAAAA@telia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 13 July 2004 05:36 pm, Daniel Eriksson wrote: > 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 > > 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? I haven't yet had time to sit down and look at the hard hangs. It is probably still not quite safe to turn preemption back on. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407141059.00907.jhb>