Re: some small patches

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:

>
>
> 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.

The difference is in the meaning of the function and not the
functionality.  It is an interface that operates on a property of the kse
and not the thread.



>
> >
> > 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"
> >
>