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