On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Hi,
i understand that this means maybe a somwthat
large change in the system, but what do you think
if we have a lok at implementing the CPU scheduler using
weights instead of strict priorities ?
Do we have parts of the kernel which rely on priority
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,
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)?
idprio can lead to a system hang due to priority
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
Hi,
i understand that this means maybe a somwthat
large change in the system, but what do you think
if we have a lok at implementing the CPU scheduler using
weights instead of strict priorities ?
Do we have parts of the kernel which rely on priority
to implement locking etc ?
This would not be
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:28:06PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
It's an issue. Nice values count for less than before due to fixes
that Luoqi Chen made (and I committed). The behavior now isn't optimal,
but it is better than the system locking up. NICE_WEIGHT might be okay
to
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:28:06PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
It's an issue. Nice values count for less than before due to fixes
that Luoqi Chen made (and I committed). The behavior now isn't optimal,
but it is better than the
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:56:00AM +0300, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
I think this is not the clear solution for descibed problem 'couse the
dnetc client still gets a priority and still have the share of time while
other programs might run. For me idprio works great. Just change last
string
On Sun, 28 May 2000, Jacob A. Hart wrote:
I remember the scheduler bug you're talking about. My system feels much
the same as it did during 4.0-CURRENT when that bug was active. I had a
Scheduling was broken in -current on 2004/04/30 11:33:44 PDT. "nice -20" in
-current does essentially
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Bruce Evans wrote:
Scheduling was broken in -current on 2004/04/30 11:33:44 PDT. "nice -20" in
-current does essentially the same thing as "nice -10" in 4.0 (not enough
even in 4.0).
hmmm... so there's a few years to wait before we have to worry.. :-)
Bruce
--
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:19:49 +1000, "Jacob A. Hart" wrote:
For the past couple of weeks I've noticed rc5des isn't playing friendly with
the other processes on my system. When running a CPU intensive task (such
as a
"Jacob A. Hart" wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:19:49 +1000, "Jacob A. Hart" wrote:
For the past couple of weeks I've noticed rc5des isn't playing friendly with
the other processes on my system. When running a CPU
On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:38:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Try setting the nice value for rc5 to something lower than 20, but
higher than the highest (lowest) value running on your system. There was
a bug with the scheduler in the past that items run at nice 20 were
actually getting
On Fri, 26 May 2000 13:19:49 +1000, "Jacob A. Hart" wrote:
For the past couple of weeks I've noticed rc5des isn't playing friendly with
the other processes on my system. When running a CPU intensive task (such
as a buildworld, MP3 encoder, or xmame) rc5des hogs around 20-30% CPU even
For the past couple of weeks I've noticed rc5des isn't playing friendly with
the other processes on my system. When running a CPU intensive task (such
as a buildworld, MP3 encoder, or xmame) rc5des hogs around 20-30% CPU even
though, by default, it is niced at +20.
The last known "good" kernel
15 matches
Mail list logo
