with the @option{-mlfqs} kernel option. Passing this
option sets @code{thread_mlfqs}, declared in @file{threads/thread.h}, to
true when the options are parsed by @func{parse_options}, which happens
-midway through @func{main}.
+early in @func{main}.
When the 4.4@acronym{BSD} scheduler is enabled, threads no longer
directly control their own priorities. The @var{priority} argument to
fact, @func{fail} called @func{debug_panic} (via the @func{PANIC}
macro). GCC knows that @func{debug_panic} does not return, because it
is declared @code{NO_RETURN} (@pxref{Function and Parameter
-Attributes}), so it doesn't include any code in @func{pass} to take
+Attributes}), so it doesn't include any code in @func{fail} to take
control when @func{debug_panic} returns. This means that the return
address on the stack looks like it is at the beginning of the function
that happens to follow @func{fail} in memory, which in this case happens
@item Can a thread's priority change while it is on the ready queue?
-Yes. Consider this case: low-priority thread @var{L} holds a
-lock that high-priority thread @var{H} wants, so @var{H} donates its
-priority to @var{L}. @var{L} releases the lock and
-thus loses the CPU and is moved to the ready queue. Now @var{L}'s
-old priority is restored while it is in the ready queue.
+Yes. Consider a ready, low-priority thread @var{L} that holds a lock.
+High-priority thread @var{H} attempts to acquire the lock and blocks,
+thereby donating its priority to ready thread @var{L}.
@item Can a thread's priority change while it is blocked?
priority. When the donations are released, the thread's priority
becomes the one set through the function call. This behavior is checked
by the @code{priority-donate-lower} test.
-
-@item Calling @func{printf} in @func{sema_up} or @func{sema_down} reboots!
-
-@anchor{printf Reboots}
-Yes. These functions are called before @func{printf} is ready to go.
-You could add a global flag initialized to false and set it to true
-just before the first @func{printf} in @func{main}. Then modify
-@func{printf} itself to return immediately if the flag isn't set.
@end table
@node Advanced Scheduler FAQ
Yes. In general, your implementation may differ from the description,
as long as its behavior is the same.
+
+@item Some scheduler tests fail and I don't understand why. Help!
+
+If your implementation mysteriously fails some of the advanced
+scheduler tests, try the following:
+
+@itemize
+@item
+Read the source files for the tests that you're failing, to make sure
+that you understand what's going on. Each one has a comment at the
+top that explains its purpose and expected results.
+
+@item
+Double-check your fixed-point arithmetic routines and your use of them
+in the scheduler routines.
+
+@item
+Consider how much work your implementation does in the timer
+interrupt. If the timer interrupt handler takes too long, then it
+will take away most of a timer tick from the thread that the timer
+interrupt preempted. When it returns control to that thread, it
+therefore won't get to do much work before the next timer interrupt
+arrives. That thread will therefore get blamed for a lot more CPU
+time than it actually got a chance to use. This raises the
+interrupted thread's recent CPU count, thereby lowering its priority.
+It can cause scheduling decisions to change. It also raises the load
+average.
+@end itemize
@end table
projects / pintos-anon / blobdiff