On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
Sheldon Hearn wrote (2001/02/01):
What I remember of the discussions that surrounded this one, your
summary is correct. The only thing is that nice isn't so much _broken_
as it just isn't doing what you'd expect it to. :-)
Ok, scheduler in
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:23:04 +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
After reading commit logs, I understand that:
* Scheduling in -current should not cause locks, but nice is again broken.
* Scheduling in -stable can cause locks (?!?), but nice works perfectly.
I could not believe that my
Sheldon Hearn wrote (2001/02/01):
What I remember of the discussions that surrounded this one, your
summary is correct. The only thing is that nice isn't so much _broken_
as it just isn't doing what you'd expect it to. :-)
Ok, scheduler in -current is not broken. But I'm afraid that in
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:14:13 +0100, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
Ok, scheduler in -current is not broken. But I'm afraid that in -stable
it is - can (niced) process cause a lock of machine?.
You should really talk to Brian Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED]. The last
time I chatted to him about this, I was
