cvs commit: src/sys/dev/hwpmc hwpmc_mod.c src/sys/dev/random randomdev_soft.c src/sys/kern kern_intr.c kern_poll.c kern_synch.c kern_thr.c kern_umtx.c sched_4bsd.c subr_taskqueue.c uipc_mqueue.c src/sys/vm vm_zeroidle.c

John Baldwin jhb at
Tue Apr 18 12:56:26 UTC 2006

On Tuesday 18 April 2006 04:10 am, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 03:14:03PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> J> >   Change msleep() and tsleep() to not alter the calling thread's
> priority J> >   if the specified priority is zero.  This avoids a race
> where the calling J> >   thread could read a snapshot of it's current
> priority, then a different J> >   thread could change the first thread's
> priority, then the original thread J> >   would call sched_prio() inside
> msleep() undoing the change made by the J> >   second thread.  I used a
> priority of zero as no thread that calls msleep() J> >   or tsleep() should
> be specifying a priority of zero anyway. J> >
> J> >   The various places that passed 'curthread->td_priority' or some
> variant J> >   as the priority now pass 0.
> J>
> J> This should fix the problem where the first acpi taskq would run with
> J> a bogus priority (the sched_prio() when creating the taskqueue seemed
> J> to be ignored).
> Sorry for probably lame guess... Is this going to fix the problem with
> ACPI and new taskqueues?

No idea.  What is the problem?

John Baldwin <jhb at>  <><
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =

More information about the cvs-src mailing list