Can I encourage you to submit unit tests for any bugs you find as well
so they don't regress even if you end up fixing the problem?

Julian

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here the test, showing that setting a priority of preempted process
> may not result of what you expected:
>
> | first p1 p2 |
> first := nil.
> p1 := [ first ifNil: [ first:= 1] ] forkAt: Processor activePriority - 1.
> p2 := [ first ifNil: [ first:= 2] ] forkAt: Processor activePriority - 2.
> p1 priority: 10.
> (Delay forMilliseconds: 100) wait.
> first
>
> at first, an order in which processes should awake is p1 then p2.
> But then, if we setting p1 priority lower than p2 , the order should
> be p2 then p1.
>
> To fix this we should reschedule preempted process:
>
> Process>>priority: anInteger
> (anInteger >= Processor lowestPriority and:[anInteger <= Processor
> highestPriority])
>        ifTrue: [priority := anInteger]
>        ifFalse: [self error: 'Invalid priority: ', anInteger printString]
> (myList isNil or: [myList class == Semaphore]) ifTrue: [ ^ self  ].
> "we are preempted. reschedule at new priority"
> self suspend;resume.
>
> This issue shows, that comment in Process>>#terminate, lying to us:
>
> "Since the receiver is not the active process, drop its priority to
> rock-bottom so that
> it doesn't accidentally preempt the process that is trying to terminate it."
> priority := 10.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>