From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 3 06:52:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4286D16A4CE for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF05A43FA3 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA3EqCfY061492; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hA3EqAk7061491; Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:52:10 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Bruce Evans Message-ID: <20031103145210.GJ52314@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Bruce Evans , Jeff Roberson , current@freebsd.org References: <20031102055955.U10222-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <20031103233521.L1786@gamplex.bde.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031103233521.L1786@gamplex.bde.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: Jeff Roberson cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More ULE bugs fixed. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: current@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:52:31 -0000 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)