Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:10 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More ULE bugs fixed. Message-ID: <20031103145210.GJ52314@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20031103233521.L1786@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20031102055955.U10222-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <20031103233521.L1786@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:33:48AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > I think the existence of rtprio and a non-broken idprio makes infinite > deprioritization using niceness unnecessary. (idprio is still broken > (not available to users) in -current, but it doesn't need to be if > priority propagation is working as it should be.) It's safer and fairer > for all niced processes to not completely prevent each other being > scheduled, and use the special scheduling classes for cases where this > is not wanted. I'd mainly like the slices for nice -20 vs nice --20 > processes to be very small and/or infrequent. I agree. With idprio, there is no need for a special nice value that is handled outside the normal rules of "nice". I always thought that a wart after using Irix which has a working idprio. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031103145210.GJ52314>