Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:15:35 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: undocumented kernel priority changing Message-ID: <199609110315.UAA20331@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:15:05 %2B1000." <Pine.BSF.3.91.960911080953.19335B-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >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. As I've already said, it's not the 'renicing' that makes the machine continue to be usable interactively, but rather the other parts of the dynamic scheduling algorithm. Removing the 'renicing' should have little or no affect on the problems you've mentioned. I should also point out that run-away pine processes are caused by bugs in pine and should be fixed, not smoothed over with some kernel hacks. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609110315.UAA20331>