On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, John Baldwin wrote:

> On 21-Dec-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >> the original priority should be somewhere and accessible,
> >> either directly or through some function. Otherwise how
> >> do we know what to pass to tsleep() ?
> >
> > It's whatever the thread set itself.  There is no good way of setting
> > this either (vm_pagezero() and poll_idle() hack it into
> > td->td_ksegrp->kg_pri).  Userland would use rtprio(2) instead.
> > Unfortunately, this gives priorities in different units than the ones
> > for tsleep().
> pri_level is the current priority of the thread.  The actual priority level is
> going to move back into the thread and out of the KSE group so that tsleep and
> priority propagation work properly, but pri_native, pri_user, and nice will
> stay in the KSE group.  The "normal" priorities for tsleep() are just a subset

This will make encapsulating priority stuff on a struct more obviously wrong.

> of the priorities available to a thread.  Thus, they are using the same unit,
> but perhaps a wider range.

They are offset by PRI_MIN_IDLE too, due to vestiges of the rtprio()


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to