From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 1 10:33:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from lists01.iafrica.com (lists01.iafrica.com [196.7.0.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD04C37B684 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from nwl.fw.uunet.co.za ([196.31.2.162]) by lists01.iafrica.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #2) id 14OOXU-0000kV-00; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:33:00 +0200 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by nwl.fw.uunet.co.za (8.8.8/8.6.9) id UAA09215; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:32:57 +0200 (SAST) Received: by nwl.fw.uunet.co.za via recvmail id 9197; Thu Feb 1 20:32:24 2001 Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.fw.uunet.co.za) by axl.fw.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14OOWv-000AGs-00; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:32:25 +0200 To: Cejka Rudolf Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does task scheduler work correctly? (... nice bug fix) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:23:04 +0100." <20010201192304.A54677@dcse.fee.vutbr.cz> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:32:25 +0200 Message-ID: <39485.981052345@axl.fw.uunet.co.za> From: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:23:04 +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > After reading commit logs, I understand that: > > * Scheduling in -current should not cause locks, but nice is again broken. > * Scheduling in -stable can cause locks (?!?), but nice works perfectly. > > I could not believe that my understandings are correct. Please, could > anybody explain to me the real scheduler status? What I remember of the discussions that surrounded this one, your summary is correct. The only thing is that nice isn't so much _broken_ as it just isn't doing what you'd expect it to. :-) I don't think any of the FreeBSD manual pages suggest that nice 20 processes aren't supposed to get _any_ CPU time. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message