From owner-cvs-src Fri Mar 14 14:33: 7 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998AE37B401 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c18609.belrs1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [210.49.80.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E67443F93 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:33:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jeremyp@c18609.belrs1.nsw.optusnet.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EMWKRr003921; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:32:20 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h2EMWC4t003920; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:32:12 +1100 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:32:12 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , Mike Silbersack , Garance A Drosihn , Poul-Henning Kamp , Juli Mallett , Eivind Eklund , David Schultz , src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm ... SIGDANGER Message-ID: <20030314223211.GA3897@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <8023.1047662161@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030314140414.V4480@odysseus.silby.com> <3E723A8A.8070100@tcoip.com.br> <20030314204454.GI567@garage.freebsd.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030314204454.GI567@garage.freebsd.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [This whole thread is getting way off-topic for the cvs lists. It belongs in -arch or -hackers] On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:44:54PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >Why not choose process to kill by their priority? > >If we got some important processes even without uid=0 we could renice them >to value less than 0. Because the process priority is a hint to the scheduler regarding CPU allocation. It has nothing at all to do with how important a process is. It's fairly common to renice a CPU-bound process to a fairly low priority so it doesn't interfere with interactive response - that doesn't mean the process isn't important. Any solution must be able to handle a big, important, long-running CPU bound process. Your "solution" means that this process would need to be given a negative priority - which would make the whole system unusable for anything else since that process would then hog the CPU (instead of sharing it). Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-src" in the body of the message