Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:58:13 +0300 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216955 - head/usr.sbin/rtprio Message-ID: <86y66xd1pm.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3AFB20EC-3BEF-4C52-B51F-94F0A9338CBB@gmail.com> (Garrett Cooper's message of "Thu, 6 Jan 2011 15:37:15 -0800") References: <201101041413.p04EDA4f038360@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTimDTq-JXF4gm9KUfo5eJaEXKaRF-CYiycFwdZML@mail.gmail.com> <20110106211017.GA46874@freebsd.org> <201101061618.39695.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110106214243.GA51802__16340.9905079336$1294350178$gmane$org@freebsd.org> <86bp3the8p.fsf@gmail.com> <20110106224139.GA62043@freebsd.org> <3AFB20EC-3BEF-4C52-B51F-94F0A9338CBB@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> writes: > On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Alexander Best wrote: > >> On Fri Jan 7 11, Anonymous wrote: >>> Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu Jan 6 11, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>> Note that that usage is rather pointless since it means you apply rtprio to >>>>> the 'rtprio' process that is about to exit. :) >>>> >>>> yeah but at least it makes the usage of -X consistent. ;) also consider the >>>> following: the current shell has idle priority and you want to run rtprio in >>>> normal priority. then rtprio -t -0 would be a neat way of doing >>>> rtprio -t rtprio. ;) wel...not quite, because the priotity gets set to "NORMAL" >>>> when rtprio is almost finished running. ;) >>> >>> I think it'd be useful if the syntax allowed smth like >>> >>> $ rtprio 1 -0 -111 -222 -333 -444 -555 ... >> >> defenately, but that would require quite some code. also please bear in mind: >> in its current form rtprio *DOES* process -0. my code doesn't change that. the >> only thing that it changes is that before hand -0 was processed *AND* then also >> executed. now the execution doesn't take place. > > Same thing, no code change: > > sh -c 'for i in 1 -0 -111 -222 -333 -444 -555; do rtprio $i; done' > > Yes, there's more of a processing cost to doing it this way > with exec/fork jazz and shell logic I was thinking about rtprio(1) raising its own priority using syntax like $ rtprio num -0 ... or $ rtprio -t -0 ... so that subsequent calls to rtprio(2) are under new priority. Not sure if it makes difference on heavily loaded system. > -- but how often do you execute > rtprio, and is the required code change really necessary? Simple is > better in my book.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86y66xd1pm.fsf>