On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:21 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I thought about that meanwhile, see other reply.
-Mike
-
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]
