Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-06-03 Thread David Xu
Thank you very much. After I sent previous question to you, I was still thinking the mail. and last night when I went to bed, I suddenly found that I was wrong, choosethread() selects a highest priority thread from queue, if it is the lastest assigned thread, there is of course no more thread as

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-06-03 Thread Julian Elischer
Thanks for looking at it This is not offtopic.. the answer is: No, the code is correct.. here is the logic.. If there are N processors, then there are at most N KSEs (kernel schedulable entities) working to process threads that belong to this KSEGOUP. (kg). If there are N or more threads

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-06-01 Thread David Xu
Sorry for this OT, I found a point in kern_switch.c, when choosethread() runs, you reset kg_last_assigned to NULL, I suspect it is incorrect, should it be: --- kern_switch.c.orig Sun Jun 2 14:52:24 2002 +++ kern_switch.c Sun Jun 2 14:53:28 2002 @@ -67,7 +67,9 @@

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-06-01 Thread Terry Lambert
Julian Elischer wrote: > interesting but not exactly brief.. :-) Does brevity really matter? You asked "why". I gave a reference in the general class; Jake gave a specific reference for the upcall issues he think the code will face. I think you have enough justification for Jake's position to

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-06-01 Thread Terry Lambert
Jake Burkholder wrote: > The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a > trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack > at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few instructions > on entry to the kernel is a save, which rotates the register

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700, > Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > > > interesting but not exactly brief.. :-) > > > > > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > > > > > > > The system call stu

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > interesting but not exactly brief.. :-) > > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > > > > The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a > > trap instruct

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Julian Elischer
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-) On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a > trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack > at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few instruct

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:45:50PM -0700, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > > > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > [aweful stuff] > (always did dislike sparc) Whatever. It's the most fun architecture I've found to program for. > > jake.. > can

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Terry Lambert
Julian Elischer wrote: > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > [aweful stuff] > (always did dislike sparc) > > jake.. > can you show me the sequecne of operations performed on the stack > in a syscall before and after the jump to kernel space? It's not that awful. Read the paper "SP

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: [aweful stuff] (always did dislike sparc) jake.. can you show me the sequecne of operations performed on the stack in a syscall before and after the jump to kernel space? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-c

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Jake Burkholder
Apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:56:30PM -0700, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > > > + /* Note: use of M_WAITOK means it won't fail. */ > > > + newkse->ke_pcb = > > > + &(((struct md_store *)(newkse->ke_mdstorage))->mds_pcb); > > > + newkse->ke_frame = > > > +

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Julian Elischer
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: > > There are problems with the patchset: fixed This is code that translates the new states to old states for single threaded processes so that 'ps' and friends can continue to report a s

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But he said he was asking for "permission" to commit it ("Seeking OK to > > commit KSE MIII-again"), so he should be talking with other committers. > > I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's > g

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Bernd Walter
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments > > about the logic and work in the change? > > > > I'm working on his comments but commen

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But he said he was asking for "permission" to commit it ("Seeking OK to > commit KSE MIII-again"), so he should be talking with other committers. I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's given us a chance to comment on the tech

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Peter Wemm
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either > > include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with > > actual commit process. > > s/developers/arch/ I wasn't clear with this

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-31 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either > include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with > actual commit process. s/developers/arch/ DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe:

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > [..] > > > It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values > > > end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due > > > to the way that register

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Peter Wemm
Julian Elischer wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: [..] > > It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values > > end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due > > to the way that register stack works. The current test program > > will not wo

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, > Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > > > > > > > > Index: bin/ksetest/Makefile > > === > > Index: bin

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Jake Burkholder
apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer said words to the effect of; > > > ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments > about the logic and work in the change? > > I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-30 Thread Terry Lambert
John Baldwin wrote: > This is your opinion not gospel truth. The reason I and others leave out > braces except when they are needed is to minimize the number of wasted > vertical space so that more code can fit on a screen at a time. This is > the same reason for using > > if (foo) { >

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-30 Thread Matthew Dillon
:... :} : :Instead of: : :if (foo) :{ :... :} : :However, the real pain here is that basically people go and modify code :they aren't even touching. If you are modifying the condition of an if() :but not the body then the extra braces are just gratuitous. You did this :when you w

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Peter Wemm
Julian Elischer wrote: > > > ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments > about the logic and work in the change? If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with actua

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Julian Elischer
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote: > > Largely these need to be written by someone who is intimately aquainted > > with the register set of the machine in question and knows > > what registers need to be saved to restore a user context correctly. > > I can do the alpha part tomorrow unle

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII-again

2002-05-30 Thread Bernd Walter
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments > about the logic and work in the change? > > I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure be > appreciated.. > especially if they actually

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-30 Thread John Baldwin
On 29-May-2002 Matthew Dillon wrote: >:having said that, >:In this case the braces in question in ithread_schedule are: >:- } else >:+ } else { >:curthread->td_kse->ke_flags |= KEF_NEEDRESCHED; >:+ } >: >:I tend to always put brac

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-30 Thread Miguel Mendez
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:43:22AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Hi, > Rules are what seperate us from the apes. And even with them, some computer users still resemble them ;-)ยบ > Apes with Internet access, degrees in CS, a working knowledge of > CVS, an ability to code, mailing list access, an

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-30 Thread Terry Lambert
Matthew Dillon wrote: > But that is not what is going on here. Not by a long shot. We have > people on this list that complain over the smallest 'infraction' of the > rules, and then jump up the alleged significance of the event by > foretelling gloom and doom and the end of all

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Matthew Dillon
When it comes right down to it, I am getting wholely sick and tired of people acting like rulez-police and complaining about the most minor, most insignificant syntactical changes imagineable. The rest of us developers have better things to do with their time then to spend it

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > > ie: it is ok to change this: > if (foo) { > fumble(); > futz(); > } else > bah; > > into > } else { > bah; > } In this case it's moot because I already did it as a separate commit but it was changing: if (foo) { mum

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Peter Wemm
Julian Elischer wrote: > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Wed, 29 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > > 4) It would be nice if you didn't mix in gratuitous style changes with > > >actual content changes such as extra braces in else clause of > > >PROCFS_CTRL_WAIT case in pr

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread J. Mallett
* From Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > : > :When you make the code more readable, you introduce further diffs, and you > :leave no reference against the original code of where the functional changes > :are. Either make the "base" code cleaned up by committing non-functional > :changes fir

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :When you make the code more readable, you introduce further diffs, and you :leave no reference against the original code of where the functional changes :are. Either make the "base" code cleaned up by committing non-functional :changes first, or commit against the "base" code your functional

RE: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > 4) It would be nice if you didn't mix in gratuitous style changes with > >actual content changes such as extra braces in else clause of > >PROCFS_CTRL_WAIT case in procfs_ctl.c

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread J. Mallett
* From Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No hold on a minute. Some of us believe that adding those extra > braces and parenthesis makes the code a whole lot more readable. they > are NOT gratuitous in the least, certainly not from my point of view! > When you make the code mo

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Ok I just committed that one on it's own now back to the real points that jhb raised.. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Matthew Dillon
:having said that, :In this case the braces in question in ithread_schedule are: :- } else :+ } else { :curthread->td_kse->ke_flags |= KEF_NEEDRESCHED; :+ } : :I tend to always put braces on the else clause if the 'then' clause :ha

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :> Furthermore, it is an extreme and inappropriate imposition on Julian :> to require that he extract all the alleged 'gratuitous braces and :> ()'s)' into a separate commit. : :Uh, no it isn't. That is the rules we operate under. This type of :request comes up _daily_, and is gen

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I agree that as a general rule of thumb it makes sense to commit > whitespace/paren/brace changes separately, but that is ALL it is. > A rule of thumb. It should not be followed blindly, on principle, > if it has an adverse effect

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w > rites: > > >I agree that as a general rule of thumb it makes sense to commit > >whitespace/paren/brace changes separately, but that is ALL it is. > >A rule of thumb. It should not be

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 01:07:01PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:26:26AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > :> > > :> > 9) More gratuitous braces as well as gratuituos ()'s and white space > :> >changes in ithread_schedule() obfuscate the functional diffs. > :> > :>

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w rites: >I agree that as a general rule of thumb it makes sense to commit >whitespace/paren/brace changes separately, but that is ALL it is. >A rule of thumb. It should not be followed blindly, on principle, >if it has an adverse ef

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Matthew Dillon
:On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:26:26AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: :> > :> > 9) More gratuitous braces as well as gratuituos ()'s and white space :> >changes in ithread_schedule() obfuscate the functional diffs. :> :> I guess so though it made it a hell of a lot more readable to me. : :That

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 11:26:26AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > 9) More gratuitous braces as well as gratuituos ()'s and white space > >changes in ithread_schedule() obfuscate the functional diffs. > > I guess so though it made it a hell of a lot more readable to me. That isn't the

RE: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Julian Elischer
On Wed, 29 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 28-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > > Now things are moving again. > > Jonathon Mini and I have cleaned up the patches a bit > > and fixed the more obvious problems.. > > from teh point of view of non KSE processes > > (that would be all of th

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Peter Wemm
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: > > >+ frame = td->td_frame; > >+ frame->tf_eax = retval; /* Child returns zero */ > >+ frame->tf_edx = aux;/* I dunno */ > > > >You could always ask about that instead of having

Re: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: >+ frame = td->td_frame; >+ frame->tf_eax = retval; /* Child returns zero */ >+ frame->tf_edx = aux;/* I dunno */ > >You could always ask about that instead of having a I dunno comment. :) >I think that we

RE: Seeking OK to commit KSE MIII

2002-05-29 Thread John Baldwin
On 28-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > Now things are moving again. > Jonathon Mini and I have cleaned up the patches a bit > and fixed the more obvious problems.. > from teh point of view of non KSE processes > (that would be all of them at the moment) it shuold act the > same as now. Hopeful