Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored
From: Harald Schmalzbauer (h_at_schmalzbauer.de)
Date: 01/31/04
- Previous message: Harald Schmalzbauer: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- In reply to: Tom: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- Next in thread: Marco Wertejuk: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Tom <tom@sdf.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:07:34 +0100
On Saturday 31 January 2004 22:53, Tom wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > If I start a process with nice 15 (like seti) it shouldn't slow down my
> > machine by exponetial factors.
> > It should take cycles which are almost unused and not block regular
> > processes (like make)
>
> ...
>
> Isn't "idprio" the best way of scheduling a process to run when the
> system is otherwise idle? Can you try with idprio?
I didn't know that.
Thank you for that hint, I'll have a look at it.
But I think SCHED_ULE shouldn't behave that different to 4BSD ragrding nice.
Thanks,
-Harry
>
> From what I know of "nice", it should reduces the processes scheduling
> priority. There is no definition in the nice manpage on the exact
> definition of reduced priority means.
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- application/pgp-signature attachment: signature
- Previous message: Harald Schmalzbauer: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- In reply to: Tom: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- Next in thread: Marco Wertejuk: "Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
