vmark hangs with libthr and libkse

[David Xu]

Julian Elischer wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Xu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Jeff Roberson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you need to do adjustrunqueue() in sched_prio?  I also don't
>>>>>understand the case in sched_switchout().  Can you please explain that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>adjustrunqueue maintains kg_last_assigned and related things, when a
>>>>thread's priority is changed,
>>>>the thread might no longer can be in scheduler's run queue,  instead it
>>>>will be in ksegrp's runqueue,
>>>>because there is higher priority thread, and a KSE it attached should be
>>>>detached now, and the KSE
>>>>will attach to another higher priority thread, ULE ignores this
>>>>requirement, as I can understand,
>>>>ULE is only aware of  1:1 between KSE and thread.
>>>>It would be nice if scheduler interface is thread aware but not kse aware.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Yes, wouldn't it be nice..  I don't think it should be ksegrp aware
>>>either.  oh well, it wasn't my design.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>SA process doesn't rely on kse and ksegrp because I introduced a 
>>kse_upcall structure,
>>so I don't care someone drops kse or ksegrp and makes them as scheduler 
>>specific data structure.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, this is not quite true.
>without KSEGRPS there is no possibility to make both
>process scope and system scope threads.
>
>process scope threads require a rendevous structure of some sort
>and it can not be the process.
>
>The fact that the 1:1 threads don't do this is why they can not
>do process-scope threads and system scope threads but are system scope
>only.
>  
>
OK,  I just don't want to manage kse,  what I want is to set a 
concurrent level for a ksegrp,
for example, a process-scope thread's group has a concurrent level 
equals number of cpu,
so please don't force me to create and destroy kse, make them transparent.

>MACH didn't have the additional concept of the KSEGRP and the
>contortions they had to go to to try do process scope threads (they
>eventually gave up) (I was a MACH user at that time) was incredible.
>
>  
>
>>>Will you commit this patch?
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Will do.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
>  
>