From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 10 15:15:36 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA18890 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA18874 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA19360; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:15:05 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:15:05 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: David Greenman cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: undocumented kernel priority changing In-Reply-To: <199609101329.GAA18135@root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, David Greenman wrote: > > > >Michael Smith: > >>> (10 minutes cpu time even on a 100 MHz 586 is pretty a lot ;) > > > >DG: > >} FreeBSD already has a sophisticated mechanism for controlling process > > > > Actually, it has a great effect on interactive performance. The algorithm > for priority calculation in FreeBSD is significantly different from the one in > 4.4BSD. For one thing, we take into account the CPU consumption of all of the > processes in the job. [snipped] > ratio of CPU given to 'background' processes - and there is no way that the > kernel can make any good arbitrary decision about this. Hmm, I actually like the automatic renicing when programs such as vi and pine run away with the CPU when their tty disappears. The machine is still usable interactively. Danny