Here's a power-saving idea that's been marinating since 2007 (in an
obscure corner of my mail queue). When I reviewed it today I didn't
see anything too wrong with it.
John
Message-Id: 200710240912.l9o9c1k2026...@new.toad.com
To: gnu
Subject: OLPC idea: set a niceness value under which
.l9o9c1k2026...@new.toad.com
To: gnu
Subject: OLPC idea: set a niceness value under which a process won't
awaken suspended CPU
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:12:01 -0700
From: John Gilmore g...@toad.com
An easy lever for CPU consumption management (power mgmt) would be to
define a set of user
a niceness value under which a process won't awaken
suspended CPU
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:12:01 -0700
From: John Gilmore g...@toad.com
An easy lever for CPU consumption management (power mgmt) would be to
define a set of user processes that won't be scheduled in a
power-suspended system
On Mar 2, 2012 10:37 AM, Lennert Buytenhek buyt...@wantstofly.org wrote:
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
inversion. If the low priority process does:
fd = open(/foo/bar, O_RDWR);
flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
and the high priority process then also
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
inversion. If the low priority process does:
fd = open(/foo/bar, O_RDWR);
flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
and the high priority process then also
On Mar 2, 2012 11:06 AM, Lennert Buytenhek buyt...@wantstofly.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
inversion. If the low priority process does:
fd = open(/foo/bar,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:19:43AM -0800, Jon Nettleton wrote:
One problem you can get into with this scheme is a kind of priority
inversion. If the low priority process does:
fd = open(/foo/bar, O_RDWR);
flock(fd, LOCK_EX);
and the high priority process
