> a previous discussion that said 4 was the default...I don't see
> why. nice uses +10 by default on all linux distro...So I suspect
> that if Mike just used "nice lame" instead of "nice +5 lame", he
> would have got what he wanted.
tcsh, and probably csh, has a builtin 'nice' with default +4. So
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:31 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> nice on my debian etch seems to choose nice +10 without arguments contrary to
> a previous discussion that said 4 was the default. However 4 is a good value
> to use as a base of sorts.
I don't see why. nice uses +10 by default on all linux
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 20:21, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 19:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [...] The situation as we speak is that you can run cpu intensive
> > > tasks while watching eye-candy. With RSDL, you can't, you feel the
>
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 17:16 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 17:08, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Virtual or physical cores has nothing to do with the interactivity
> > regression I noticed. Two nice 0 tasks which combined used 50% of my
> > box can no longer share that box with tw
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 17:08, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Virtual or physical cores has nothing to do with the interactivity
> regression I noticed. Two nice 0 tasks which combined used 50% of my
> box can no longer share that box with two nice 5 tasks and receive the
> 50% they need to perform. Th
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 17:38 -0400, michael chang wrote:
> Perhaps, Mike Galbraith, do you feel that it should be possible to use
> the CPU at 100% for some task and still maintain excellent
> interactivity?
Within reason, yes. Defining "reason" is difficult. As we speak, this
is possible to a m
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 00:53, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 16:10, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:51 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On 13/03/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As soon as your cpu is fully utilized, fairness looses or
> > > >
On 3/12/07, michael chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Considering the concepts put out by projects such as BOINC and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I wouldn't be thoroughly surprised by this ideology,
although I do question the particular way this test case is being run.
If Con actually implements SCHED_ID
On 3/12/07, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 05:49 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 01:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 22:23 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Mike the c
Op Monday 12 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> > > If we fix 95% of the desktop and worsen 5% is that bad given how much
> > > else we've gained in the process?
> >
> > Killing the known corner case starvation scenarios is wonderful, but
> > let's not just pretend that interactive tasks don't have
10 matches
Mail list logo
