Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:31:06 +0930 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE nice behavior fixed. Message-ID: <200304030931.06619.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20030402015226.E64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <20030402015226.E64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:24, Jeff Roberson wrote: > It probably still needs some tweaking but it seems to be MUCH better now. > New algorithm entirely. > > nice +20 processes will not run if anything else wants to. > > idleprio is still not working correctly. bde reports that this causes a > 3% perf degradation for buildworld. Isn't nice +20 == idle prio then? My understanding was that idle prio didn't run unless nothing else wanted the CPU which is what you describe nice +20 as doing :) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 9A8C 569F 685A D928 5140 AE4B 319B 41F4 5D17 FDD5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304030931.06619.doconnor>