Hi!
> > I don't want to start a bikeshedding session here, but I agree with Parth
> > on the interpretation of the values.
> >
> > I've always read niceness values as
> > -20 (least nice to the system / other processes)
> > +19 (most nice to the system / other processes)
> >
> > So following this trend I'd see for latency-nice:
>
>
> So jotting down separately, in case if we think to have "latency-nice"
> terminology, then we might need to select one of the 2 interpretation:
>
> 1).
> > -20 (least nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice latency for throughput)
> > +19 (most nice to latency, i.e. sacrifice throughput for latency)
> >
>
> 2).
> -20 (least nice to other task in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-sensitive)
> +19 (most nice to other tasks in terms of sacrificing latency, i.e.
> latency-forgoing)
For the record, interpretation 2 makes sense to me.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
