Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:14:02 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VM fix for 2.4.0-test9 & OOM handler |
| |
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > [...] > > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less > > important. > > Please don't, this assumption is quite wrong. I use nice just to > be 'nice' to other users. I can run my *important* CPU hog > simulation nice +10 in order to let other people get more CPU > when the need it.
In that case the time the process has been running and the CPU time used will save the process if it's been running for a long time.
Please read the /entire/ algorithm before making rash conclusions like this.
If nice is used for important, long-running tasks, the fact that they are long-running will save them (and be honest, would you really care if a simulation would be killed after 5 minutes? it's only inconvenient if it gets killed after a few hours...)
> But if you put the logic "niced == not important" somewhere into > the kernel, nobody will use nice anymore. I'd rather give a > bonus to niced processes.
This doesn't make ANY sense at all. The objective is to destroy the least amount of work, which means giving a bonus to processes which have used a lot of CPU time already ... regardless of nice value.
> all. But my point here is that you do, and you take it as an hint for > process importance as percieved by the user that run it, and I believe > it's just wrong guessing).
If you have a better algorithm, feel free to send patches.
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |