Thanks. I'll try to back port locally. Sushanth
--- On Tue, 4/10/12, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > From: John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: Startvation of realtime piority threads > To: "Sushanth Rai" <sushanth_...@yahoo.com> > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 6:57 AM > On Monday, April 09, 2012 4:32:24 pm > Sushanth Rai wrote: > > I'm using stock 7.2. The priorities as defined in > priority.h are in this range: > > > > /* > > * Priorities range from 0 to 255, but differences > of less then 4 (RQ_PPQ) > > * are insignificant. Ranges are as > follows: > > * > > * Interrupt threads: > 0 - 63 > > * Top half kernel threads: > 64 - 127 > > * Realtime user threads: > 128 - 159 > > * Time sharing user threads: 160 > - 223 > > * Idle user threads: > 224 - 255 > > * > > * XXX If/When the specific interrupt thread and > top half thread ranges > > * disappear, a larger range can be used for user > processes. > > */ > > > > The trouble is with vm_waitpfault(), which explicitly > sleeps at PUSER. > > Ah, yes, PUSER is the one Pxxx not in "top half kernel > threads". You can patch > that locally, but you may have better lucking using 9.0 (or > backporting my > fixes in 9.0 back to 7 or 8). They were too invasive > to backport to FreeBSD > 7/8, but you could still do it locally (I've used them at > work on both 7 and 8). > > -- > John Baldwin > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"