On Tuesday 24 April 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> yeah, i guess this has little to do with X. I think in your scenario
>> it might have been smarter to either stop, or to renice the workloads
>> that took away CPU power from others to _positive_ nice levels.
>> Negative nice levels can indeed be dangerous.
>
>btw., was X itself at nice 0 or nice -10 when the lockup happened?
>
> Ingo
Memory could be hazy Ingo, but I think X was at 0 when that occurred.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
I use technology in order to hate it more properly.
-- Nam June Paik
-
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]
