Re: some small patches

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:

> I object to the sched_clock() change.  We've discussed this on threads_at_

Yes and the clock code doesn't need to know about KSEs and it is of
ABSOLUTLY NO difference to the sched_clock() function if it derives the
thread from the KSE or derives the KSE from the thread.

there is no big difference between
sched_clock(curthread);
and 
sched_clock(curthread->td_kse)
except that one requires kern_clock.c to know about KSEs and one
doesn't.

> 
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Andrew R. Reiter wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >
> > > :
> > > :Here are two small patches they are pretty non-controversial in my
> > > :opinion.
> > > :
> > > :they are part of a bigger patch, but I'd like to get them in separatly
> > > :to simplify the bigger one.
> > > :the first patch:
> > > :http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/IDLETD.diff
> > > :moves the flag that identifies a thread as being one of the idle threads
> > > :from the KSE to the thread. The code that wants to know already
> > > :has a thread pointer, but not the KSE pointer so this makes more sense.
> > >
> > > Is this correct?
> > >
> > > Index: sys/proc.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /repos/projects/mirrored/freebsd/src/sys/sys/proc.h,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.313
> > > diff -u -r1.313 proc.h
> > > --- sys/proc.h	2003/04/13 21:29:11	1.313
> > > +++ sys/proc.h	2003/04/17 22:52:07
> > > _at__at_ -349,6 +323,7 _at__at_
> > >  #define	TDF_CAN_UNBIND	0x000004 /* Only temporarily bound. */
> > >  #define	TDF_SINTR	0x000008 /* Sleep is interruptible. */
> > >  #define	TDF_TIMEOUT	0x000010 /* Timing out during sleep. */
> > > +#define	TDF_IDLETD	0x000040 /* This is an idle thread */
> > >  #define	TDF_SELECT	0x000040 /* Selecting; wakeup/waiting
> > > danger. */
> > >  #define	TDF_CVWAITQ	0x000080 /* Thread is on a cv_waitq (not
> > > slpq). */
> > >  #define	TDF_UPCALLING	0x000100 /* This thread is doing an
> > > upcall. */
> > >
> > >
> > > Both TDF_IDLETD and TD_SELECT have the same value.
> >
> >
> > uh, no, TDF_IDLETD should be 0x20
> > I copied that line by hand from my test system because
> > the diff from there is different (there are more changes frm which this
> > was extracted) and flubbed it..  good catch.
> > (That's why we do reviews right?) :-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Just curious.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :The second patch:
> > > :http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/sched_clock.diff
> > > :makes the sched_ API entrypoint sched_clock()
> > > :take a thread argument instead of a KSE.
> > > :Once again, the callers have the thread pointer and not the KSE pointer,
> > > :and in fact they probably should not have the KSE pointer.
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :anyone object to these patches?
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :_______________________________________________
> > > :freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> > > :http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> > > :To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
> > > :
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew R. Reiter
> > > arr_at_watson.org
> > > arr_at_FreeBSD.org
> > >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>