On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 12/23/2011 8:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
The sloppiest fix might be to do this:
Index: sched_ule.c
===================================================================
- --- sched_ule.c (revision 228777)
+++ sched_ule.c (working copy) @@ -1434,7 +1434,8 @@
sched_priority(struct thread *td) } else { pri = SCHED_PRI_MIN; if
(td->td_sched->ts_ticks) - pri +=
SCHED_PRI_TICKS(td->td_sched);
+ pri += min(SCHED_PRI_TICKS(td->td_sched), +
SCHED_PRI_RANGE); pri += SCHED_PRI_NICE(td->td_proc->p_nice);
KASSERT(pri >= PRI_MIN_BATCH && pri <= PRI_MAX_BATCH,
("sched_priority: invalid priority %d: nice %d, "
I've applied this to both the host and the guest, and am recompiling
the guest kernel (hopefully it'll stay up long enough...).
I'll report back.
Do y'all (FreeBSD Devs) want a PR?
I've run 2 complete buildworld/buildkernel cycles with the patch applied
in the guest, and it's made it all the way through. It wouldn't
do that without it.
Can we get this (or something else like it) applied?
Do I need to file a PR?
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: l...@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
