![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> You mean this the other way round, no? +nice means more nice. sure you're right. and i know that timeslices get asssigned based on static priority (which is nice value rescaled). > For the most part, most tasks start at nice 0 so they pretty much all get the > same size timslices unless they get preempted. The rest of the discussion i've read that tasks should start at higher dynamic priority with a small timeslice (a priority boost for a starting task) then immediatly drop to a lower priority if it use all it's timeslice. > implemented theory. Changing it up and down by dynamic priority one way and > then the other wasn't helpful when I've tried it previously. maybe it's because the timeslice calculation is reversed? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||