On Monday 18 May 2009 1:38:03 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > 2009/5/18 John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org>: > > On Monday 18 May 2009 1:12:59 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > >> 2009/5/18 John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org>: > >> > On Saturday 16 May 2009 12:40:44 pm Ben Kelly wrote: > >> 2) I think this KPI can be dangerous and lead to problems. Priority is > >> something highly fragile. > > > > All the more reason to make developers _think_ about the priority of each > > kthread they create. Right now all these threads start out with a priority > > of PVM since that is what thread0 runs at. Does that sound right to you? Do > > you think many folks realize that? It sounds very bogus to me. I think > > forcing people to pick a sensible priority for each thread is far better than > > the complete lack of thought that often happens now. > > At least, we could leave the default version not accepting any > priority for threads which are not interested on that and trying to > move people to the new KPI _only and if only_ they need real boosts or > lay down. I would rather force people to think. We've had problems in the past with folks not thinking clearly enough (e.g. just using a constant to tsleep() instead of figuring out a real timeout value to use). -- John BaldwinReceived on Mon May 18 2009 - 17:06:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:47 UTC