From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 14 14:57:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB20516A4CE for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:57:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A92743D2D for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:57:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 9838 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2004 14:57:50 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 14 Jul 2004 14:57:50 -0000 Received: from 10.50.41.229 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6EEvj0d025433; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:57:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: "Daniel Eriksson" Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:59:00 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407141059.00907.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_4bsd.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:57:51 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org