* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > By breaking the UNIX model of nice levels. Not an option in my book.
>
> Breaking user expectations of nice levels is?
_changing_ it is an option within reason, and we've done it a couple of
times already in the past, and even within CFS (as Peter correctly
observed) we've been through a couple of iterations already. And as i
mentioned it before, the outer edge of nice levels (+19, by far the most
commonly used nice level) was inconsistent to begin with: 3%, 5%, 9% of
nice-0, depending on HZ. So changing that to a consistent (and
user-requested) 1.5% is a much smaller change than you seem to make it
out to be. CFS itself is a far larger "change of expectations" than this
tweak to nice levels. So by your standard we could never change the
scheduler. (which your ultimate argument might be after all =B-)
Ingo
-
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]
