On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, February 25, 2011 5:23:04 am Remko Lodder wrote:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
[contex restored:
+A priority of 1
On Friday, February 25, 2011 5:23:04 am Remko Lodder wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
> >>>
> > [contex restored:
> > +A priority of 19 or 20 will pre
On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
>>>
> [contex restored:
> +A priority of 19 or 20 will prevent a process from taking any cycles from
> +others at nice 0 or better.]
[
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
[contex restored:
+A priority of 19 or 20 will prevent a process from taking any cycles from
+others at ni
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
[contex restored:
+A priority of 19 or 20 will prevent a process from taking any cycles from
+others at nice 0 or better.]
On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:4
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
[contex restored:
+A priority of 19 or 20 will prevent a process from taking any cycles from
+others at nice 0 or better.]
On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:47 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
Are you sure t
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:13:33PM +, Remko Lodder wrote:
> Author: remko
> Date: Thu Feb 24 16:13:33 2011
> New Revision: 219003
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219003
>
> Log:
> Add wording about the priority range and
> mention what effect this has at certain
> values.
>
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:03:33 pm Remko Lodder wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:47 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Are you sure that this statement applies to both ULE and 4BSD? The two
> > schedulers treat nice values a bit differently.
>
> No I am not sure that the statement
On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:47 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>
> Are you sure that this statement applies to both ULE and 4BSD? The two
> schedulers treat nice values a bit differently.
No I am not sure that the statement applies, given your response I understand
that both schedulers
On Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:13:33 am Remko Lodder wrote:
> Author: remko
> Date: Thu Feb 24 16:13:33 2011
> New Revision: 219003
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219003
>
> Log:
> Add wording about the priority range and
> mention what effect this has at certain
> values.
>
Author: remko
Date: Thu Feb 24 16:13:33 2011
New Revision: 219003
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219003
Log:
Add wording about the priority range and
mention what effect this has at certain
values.
PR: 124469
Obtained from:NetBSD nice.1 v1.14
MFC after:
11 matches
Mail list logo