David Xu wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 07:52:30AM +0800, David Xu wrote: >> >> >>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Perhaps this can be tweaked. >>>> >>>> Kris >>>> >>>> P.S. Please, no responses about how maybe someone could write a new >>>> scheduler that doesn't have this property. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Can you try it again with FULL_PREEMPTION is turned on ? >>> >> >> >> Didn't really make a difference: >> >> >> > This might only can be fixed when msleep no longer explicitly fiddles > thread priority, let scheduler fully control it. > I don't agree. The more likely problem according Stephan is that threads returning from userland get their priority elevated so they have a better chance of running right away. If you have plans to change how tsleep and msleep manage priorities, please discuss it on arch_at_ before you start making changes. ScottReceived on Wed Nov 23 2005 - 23:41:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC