Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the
dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary
purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU
resources based on external considerations.
I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based
on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand.
Not exactly. If "nice" is being (automatically) fiddled to meet some
measurable requirement such as the amount of CPU tasks get it is no
longer available as a means for the indication of the relative
importance of the tasks. I.e. it can't be both the means for saying
which tasks should be allocated the most CPU and the means by which that
allocation is controlled.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
