Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:42:19 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Subject: Re: Process/thread states. Message-ID: <20020904163927.N385-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209031245020.12482-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > > ... (I don't > > see why just using == to check a thread state is all that hard). > > because it in some cases actually becomes: (due to the fact thst you > can be on the sleep queue AND teh run queue) > #define TD_ON_RUNQ(td) (((td)->td_state & TD_BASE_MASK) == TD_ST_RUNQ) > as you have to separate out the sleep queue bit. > ... > Do you really want to type that sort of test everywhere? > By making it a macro we can keep the implementation of this state > hidden. e.g if we move the RUNQ part of the state to td_flags > to make it independently testable, the rest of the code doesn;t have to > know how we optimised this. (we are discussing this exact change now). > similarly for swapped.. or other states. Just don't forget to change it back to a simple test once you have debugged and optimized it :-). One virtue of inline code is that it inhibits expansion of huge macros to huger ones. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904163927.N385-100000>