Hi guys,
has ANYONE done any testing with my experimental SetThreadPriority patch which I mailed on May 15? So far I haven't received any replies, despite this probably being rather interesting, given that it is implemented by many of our winmm threads...
Or should this remain untested until I will have a sizeable amount of time for testing myself during LinuxTag?
Andreas Mohr
"Andreas" == Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de writes:
Andreas> Hi guys, has ANYONE done any testing with my experimental Andreas> SetThreadPriority patch which I mailed on May 15? So far I Andreas> haven't received any replies, despite this probably being Andreas> rather interesting, given that it is implemented by many of our Andreas> winmm threads...
Andreas> Or should this remain untested until I will have a sizeable Andreas> amount of time for testing myself during LinuxTag?
It happens quite often: Somebody asks a question, but everybody thinks: Here, this is nothing where I am really involved, so probably somebody more involved will answer. But there is nobody more involved...
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi guys,
has ANYONE done any testing with my experimental SetThreadPriority patch which I mailed on May 15? So far I haven't received any replies, despite this probably being rather interesting, given that it is implemented by many of our winmm threads...
Or should this remain untested until I will have a sizeable amount of time for testing myself during LinuxTag?
Andreas Mohr
I've just tried this out. First I had to define SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_ISO, just to get anywhere, but ultimately it fails because it relies on getting the value of thread->unix_tid and/or thread->unix_pid. Unfortunately, these never seem to be set after being initialised to -1 (in fact, in a very quick grep of Wine I could only find one or two assignments involving either of them, and that was just copying the value from another thread). To be honest I have no idea where to go from here.
-
Andreas Mohr -
Aneurin Price -
Uwe Bonnes