Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:58:17 +0200
From:      Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ULE nice behavior fixed.
Message-ID:  <20030402115816.GN725@starjuice.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030402212503.N26453@gamplex.bde.org>
References:  <20030402015226.E64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <20030402091300.GG725@starjuice.net> <20030402212503.N26453@gamplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (2003/04/02 21:48), Bruce Evans wrote:

> > Some of us have been waiting for that behaviour for a long time (long
> > before you started working on ULE).
> 
> Er, this is the normal behaviour in FreeBSD-3.0 through FreeBSD-4.8,
> so you shouldn't have waited more than negative 4 years for it :-).
> The strict implementation of this behaviour in these releases causes
> priority inversion problems, but the problems apparently aren't very
> important.  The scaling of niceness was re-broken in -current about 3
> years ago to "fix" the priority inversion problems.

I should have realized that "a long time" would mean different things to
different people, with respect to HEAD.  I remember being involved in a
flamefest on this issue a few years back.  You were involved too. :-)

However, are you sure the "nice 20 only gets unwanted CPU" behaviour is
actually what you get in RELENG_4 (as opposed to your heavily patched
version)?

Ciao,
Sheldon.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402115816.GN725>