Hi Jaromir,
sorry, I'm not deep into process scheduling, I just thought it would be a trivial job. :-) Is it indisputable that Process>>#priority: should trigger the scheduler? One (me :-)) might argue naively that processes are rescheduled often enough and if waiting up to the next suspension point is not appropriate in a certain situation, senders can still #yield manually (assuming that #yield will be fixed to honor higher-priority processes as well). One might also argue that this expectation would add new overheads and side-effects to #priority:, as changing the priority of an unscheduled process does not require any invocation of the scheduler. Or am I wrong? :-)
Best,
Christoph
---
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2024-01-14T21:47:46+00:00, mail@jaromir.net wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> yes, it's still an open issue. I suggested to merge it as a reminder
> documenting the bug. Thanks for merging.
>
> Best,
> Jaromir
>
> PS: Thanks a lot for your feedback to the other issues we've been
> discussing; I'll be away for a week so my responses will be delayed.
>
>
> On 14-Jan-24 5:54:14 PM, christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Jaromir,
> >
> >is this still up to date? Would you like this to be merged into the
> >trunk or should it go to treated?
> >
> >Best,
> >Christoph
> >
> >---
> >Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
> ><https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk>
> >
> >On 2021-12-20T20:37:28+00:00, commits(a)source.squeak.org wrote:
> >
> > > A new version of KernelTests was added to project The Inbox:
> > > http://source.squeak.org/inbox/KernelTests-jar.418.mcz
> > >
> > > ==================== Summary ====================
> > >
> > > Name: KernelTests-jar.418
> > > Author: jar
> > > Time: 20 December 2021, 9:37:26.122961 pm
> > > UUID: 229ac303-0cfa-2d45-8d4e-e2b19b88cba8
> > > Ancestors: KernelTests-ct.415
> > >
> > > add a test (expected failure) to document a bug in #priority via a
> >failing test case. The bug was summarized in
> >http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2021-December/217473.html
> > > and discussed in
> > > http://forum.world.st/The-Inbox-Kernel-jar-1368-mcz-td5126894.html
> > > and most likely requires a new primitive to fix it correctly. An
> >interim fix was proposed in Kernel-jar.1368 to show the desirable
> >functionality that satisfies this test.
> > >
> > > =============== Diff against KernelTests-ct.415 ===============
> > >
> > > Item was added:
> > > + ----- Method: ProcessTest>>expectedFailures (in category
> >'failures') -----
> > > + expectedFailures
> > > +
> > > + ^ #(testDecreaseActiveProcessPriority)!
> > >
> > > Item was added:
> > > + ----- Method: ProcessTest>>testDecreaseActiveProcessPriority (in
> >category 'tests') -----
> > > + testDecreaseActiveProcessPriority
> > > + "test whether #priority: reschedules active process to allow
> >higher priority processes run;
> > > + presently (12/2021) the test fails and is here to remind about
> >the #priority bug discussed
> > > + in
> >http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2021-December/217473.html
> > > + and
> >http://forum.world.st/The-Inbox-Kernel-jar-1368-mcz-td5126894.html"
> > > +
> > > + | val oldPriority oldPreemptionYields |
> > > + val := nil.
> > > + oldPriority := Processor activePriority.
> > > + oldPreemptionYields := Smalltalk processPreemptionYields.
> > > +
> > > + [
> > > + Processor activeProcess priority: oldPriority + 2.
> > > + [ val := false ] forkAt: oldPriority + 1.
> > > + [ val := true ] forkAt: oldPriority.
> > > + Processor activeProcess priority: oldPriority.
> > > + "depending on processPreemptionYields value the active
> >process should be placed
> > > + either at the beginning or the end of the
> >quiescentProcessLists at: oldPriority"
> > > + self assert: val = Smalltalk processPreemptionYields.
> > > +
> > > + "test both alternative settings (true/false) of
> >processPreemptionYields"
> > > + val := nil.
> > > + Smalltalk processPreemptionYields: oldPreemptionYields not.
> > > +
> > > + Processor activeProcess priority: oldPriority + 2.
> > > + [ val := false ] forkAt: oldPriority + 1.
> > > + [ val := true ] forkAt: oldPriority.
> > > + Processor activeProcess priority: oldPriority.
> > > + self assert: val = Smalltalk processPreemptionYields.
> > > +
> > > + ] ensure: [
> > > + "make sure processPreemptionYields is reset to its original
> >value even if the test fails"
> > > + Smalltalk processPreemptionYields: oldPreemptionYields.
> > > + self assert: Smalltalk processPreemptionYields equals:
> >oldPreemptionYields]!