From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Jun 25 11:30:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EDA14E75 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id LAA33688; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199906251830.LAA33688@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: kern/12381: Bad scheduling in FreeBSD Reply-To: Sheldon Hearn Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/12381; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Sheldon Hearn To: Thomas Schuerger Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/12381: Bad scheduling in FreeBSD Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:24:32 +0200 Having gone over this conversation a few times, I think I understand why we're not connecting. You're coming from the perspective of someone who wants processes nice'd to 20 to get out of the way of compute-bound processes at nice <20. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who thinks FreeBSD does a good job of sharing resources amongst multiple processes. The problem is that it's exactly this that you're complaining about. It's the fact that FreeBSD distributes CPU amongst processes using priority weightings and decaying load average that's upsetting you. Basically, you want renice 20 pid to cause the affected pid to be allowed as close to no CPU time as possible while there are compute-bound processes at nice <20 running. Is this right? Ciao, Sheldon/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message