![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:53 +0000, 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. When extended to groups, I see your point. The admin would lose his ability to apportion bandwidth _within_ the group because he's already turned his only knob. That is going to be just as much of a problem for other methods though, and is just a question of how much complexity you want to pay to achieve fine grained control. -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 07:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||