[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/40419 (processor sets broken on 5.99.6)
The following reply was made to PR kern/40419; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>
To: Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
Subject: Re: kern/40419 (processor sets broken on 5.99.6)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:08:53 +0000
Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> > We can do yield() in sys__pset_bind(). Do you think it is worth?
> I was thinking of a function that scans all threads, with cpu_lock held, and
> checks to see if their l_cpu is allowed by their affinity mask, processor
> set or LP_BOUND flag. If not, change l_cpu (or migrate if online), then do a
> broadcast xcall to nullop() if there have been migrations.
> Hmm, shouldn't psets and affinity masks be mutually exclusive?
Yes, exactly what I thought while fixing this. While originally mixing was
permitted, intervention to the "jailed" processor-set is really wrong!
Fix committed (without xcall bit):
By the way, does it make more sense to return EPERM or EBUSY, or other?
Main Index |
Thread Index |