On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 m...@freebsd.org wrote:
Bruce correctly points out that the code doesn't work like I expect
with PREEMPTION, which most people will be running.
Not just PREEMPTION, but with almost any non-fast^Wfiltered interrupt
activity.
I'm thinking of adding a new per-thread field to
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:47:20 am Juli Mallett wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:35, Matthew D Fleming wrote:
>> > Author: mdf
>> > Date: Wed Feb 2 16:35:10 2011
>> > New Revision: 218195
>> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/b
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 2:47:20 am Juli Mallett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:35, Matthew D Fleming wrote:
> > Author: mdf
> > Date: Wed Feb 2 16:35:10 2011
> > New Revision: 218195
> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/218195
> >
> > Log:
> > Put the general logic for being
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Juli Mallett wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:35, Matthew D Fleming wrote:
Author: mdf
Date: Wed Feb ?2 16:35:10 2011
New Revision: 218195
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/218195
Log:
?Put the general logic for being a CPU hog into a new function
?should_yield().
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 08:35, Matthew D Fleming wrote:
> Author: mdf
> Date: Wed Feb 2 16:35:10 2011
> New Revision: 218195
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/218195
>
> Log:
> Put the general logic for being a CPU hog into a new function
> should_yield(). Use this in various places.
Author: mdf
Date: Wed Feb 2 16:35:10 2011
New Revision: 218195
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/218195
Log:
Put the general logic for being a CPU hog into a new function
should_yield(). Use this in various places. Encapsulate the common
case of check-and-yield into a new functio
