Subject: re: alternate rough SA patch (works on SMP)
To: Stephan Uphoff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew green <email@example.com>
Date: 07/01/2003 13:22:41
Christian Limpach wrote:
> Quoting Stephan Uphoff <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > > The cpu-queue wins over the
> > > global queue if both have lwp's at the same priority.
> > This can theoretically cause starvation of LWPs on the global queue.
> won't these get rescheduled at a higher priority eventually
However I can create strange scenarios where there would always be
SA LWPs around with the best priority. (Even without resorting to nice)
LWPs in the global queue would never get a chance.
This is why I used the "theoretically" qualifier ;-)
FWIW, with christian's patch i had semi-regular hangs when using
multiple SA-using processes....
i haven't tried stephan's latest incremental patch, but the previous
update appears to have made 'xmms' unstable. it's crashed a number
of times, the latest just a moment ago after it had run for only a
couple of minutes... i will be trying the update shortly (the box
has been busy...)