![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:21 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > > > >> But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the > >> dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary > >> purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU > >> resources based on external considerations. > > > > I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based > > on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand. > > Not exactly. If "nice" is being (automatically) fiddled to meet some > measurable requirement such as the amount of CPU tasks get it is no > longer available as a means for the indication of the relative > importance of the tasks. Yeah, I thought about that meanwhile, see other reply. -Mike - 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: 2006-08-31 07:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||