On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Jacob A. Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:28:06PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
> > The diff should make a process at -20 which uses all available CPU
> > schedule just slightly the ahead of a process at +20 which uses no CPU.
> > A process which uses full CPU at 0 niceness would have a priority of
> > 128, whereas a process using no CPU at 0 niceness would have a priority
> > of 90. All processes will always have a priority less than or equal to
> > 128, which is the priority at which a process with a niceness of +20
> > always runs at. A +20 process won't get better priority than anything
> > else, period. Try it out, see how it works for you:)
> I tried this patch today.
> While it didn't quite fix the problem, it sure made for some interesting
> pacman gameplay. ;-)
Yeah, I tried it out myself. I didn't actually think beforehand (hence the
testing...) why it would be bad for a process of niceness -20 to always
have better than the last priority in every case... I tried it with
MAME and it took a long time before my "escape" key event registered
(X not getting run...).
I'm thinking of ways to make the algorithm both good for people who need
(err... want) low-priority background processes only to run when there's
free time, and high-priority processes run but not to the exclusion of
everything else. The whole scheduling algorithm proper is quite tricky
to do very well; previously, it had most of the properties we want, but
it also easily allowed for deadlocks.
> Using idprio as Volodymyr suggested seems to be a viable workaround. You
> mentioned in another message that idprio could potentially deadlock my
> machine, though. Under what conditions could this happen (and how likely
> is it to occur)?
> Jacob A. Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Powered by: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #18: Sun Jun 11 19:25:03 EST 2000
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] `------------------------------'
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message