![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Le lun, 28/06/2004 à 11:14 -0400, Timothy Miller a écrit : > I would expect that nice 0 processes should get SO MUCH more than nice > 19 processes that the nice 19 process would practically starve (and in > the case of a nice 19 process, I think starvation by nice 0 processes is > just fine), but it looks like it's not starving. when i was running seti@home (more than 10k WU, 7y), i was using a a home-maid script that controled the seti process. when load > <value> i was stopping seti (SIGSTOP) then, when load <value>, i was restarting it (SIGCONT). i was using a kind of fuzzy logic to prevent from too frequent switchs and i was polling the 3 loads to make a efficient decision. that way, i was able to get 100% of my cpu when it was needed : while playing quake or comipiling a big stuff. -- Benoît Dejean JID: TazForEver@jabber.org http://gdesklets.gnomedesktop.org http://www.paulla.asso.fr [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||