Who should set the priority of a select(2)ing thread being waken up?

[Seigo Tanimura]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:19:16 +0900,
  Seigo Tanimura <tanimura at tanimura.dyndns.org> said:

tanimura> In good old days, only a socket and a pipe were the major file
tanimura> descriptors being select(2)ed.  As select(2) was just a socket
tanimura> operation, it was sufficient to set the priority of select(2)ing
tanimura> process to PSOCK(*1), I suppose.

tanimura> Nowadays, quite a few drivers support select(2) as well, including
tanimura> sound, usb, scsi controllers, and so on.  I am not convinced whether a
tanimura> process should select(2) those devices at PSOCK as we do for a socket.

tanimura> Suppose that a process select(2)s for a pcm device and a socket at
tanimura> once.  If the process is waken up by the pcm driver at PSOCK, another
tanimura> process at a better priority may preempt the first one, which can
tanimura> result in dropping some pcm data.

tanimura> Maybe it would be better if the caller of selwakeup() could determine
tanimura> the priority of a process or a thread.  That would let us raise the
tanimura> priority to PRIBIO if pcm data was ready, while the priority would
tanimura> stay at PSOCK if the socket was ready.


tanimura> (*1) I broke that in 5-CURRENT when I modified select(2) and poll(2)
tanimura> to use a conditional variable.

The attached patch implements selwakeuppri(), which lets you set the
priority of a thread being waken up.  Also in the patch is a small
test code to use selwakeuppri() in pcm(4).


Comments are welcome, thanks in advance.

-- 
Seigo Tanimura <tanimura at tanimura.dyndns.org> <tanimura at FreeBSD.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: selwakeuppri.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20031022/7b0d31f1/selwakeuppri.bin