Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 13:36:37 +0100 (MEZ) From: "Hr.Ladavac" <lada@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> To: wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfram Schneider) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: Re: Priorities? Message-ID: <199610281236.AA292366197@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> In-Reply-To: <199610281032.LAA02943@campa.panke.de> from "Wolfram Schneider" at Oct 28, 96 11:32:00 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
E-mail message from Wolfram Schneider contained: > J. Wunsch writes: > >`idleprio' processes are being scheduled only if absolutely no other > >processes are runnable, and the system would otherwise enter the idle > >loop. Thus, they are good e.g. for X11 screen savers. > > I remembered my department defined a 'xlock' icon in .fvwmrc > for new users. They used 'nice -20 xlock'. It was a disaster > on X terminals, nobody can login because the server for the X > terminals are never idle. No wonder. nice -20 is the *highest* priority (aside from rtprio processes). What they wanted was nice +20 xlock (the lower the nice value, the higher the priority of the process; it makes sense: the nicer the process, the lesser it influences the other processes). /Marino > > Wolfram >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610281236.AA292366197>