Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com> writes:

> --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> The following fixes a problem in the not-quite-right very-weak-affinity
> handling in setrunnable(), and also encapsulates the operation into a
> new inline, so that resetpriority() can share the same code.

Is changing the test in resetpriority() from against p->p_usrpri to
p->p_priority correct?

enami.

> ***************
> *** 990,1002 ****
>   	newpriority = PUSER + p->p_estcpu + NICE_WEIGHT * (p->p_nice - NZERO);
>   	newpriority = min(newpriority, MAXPRI);
>   	p->p_usrpri = newpriority;
> ! 	if (newpriority < curcpu()->ci_schedstate.spc_curpriority) {
> ! 		/*
> ! 		 * XXXSMP
> ! 		 * Same applies as in setrunnable() above.
> ! 		 */
> ! 		need_resched((p->p_cpu != NULL) ? p->p_cpu : curcpu());
> ! 	}
>   }
>   
>   /*
> --- 1014,1020 ----
>   	newpriority = PUSER + p->p_estcpu + NICE_WEIGHT * (p->p_nice - NZERO);
>   	newpriority = min(newpriority, MAXPRI);
>   	p->p_usrpri = newpriority;
> ! 	resched_proc(p);
>   }
>   
>   /*
>   
> 
> --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--