Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:13:19 -0200 (EDT)
From:      Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@coppe.ufrj.br>
To:        tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Cc:        chuckr@glue.umd.edu, tlambert@primenet.com, jonny@coppe.ufrj.br, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Process scheduling: nice does not work ???
Message-ID:  <199712112013.SAA00694@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br>
In-Reply-To: <199712100259.TAA02985@usr06.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Dec 10, 97 02:59:11 am"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(Terry Lambert)
// > > Note: these are base priorities, which the system will adjust based on
//     **********************************************************************
// > > I/O vs. CPU utilization.
//     ***********************
// 
// Look at the PRI values in the original posting.  The NI values are
// irrelevant, no mattery his intent.

The NI values should have been used to determine the new PRI values,
as have always been in Unix.  Maybe the effect of NI differences in
FreeBSD is smaller in FreeBSD than in Solaris and Linux ?  Is this
the right thing ?

// If he wanted to "lock" priorities, he need to use rtprio.  Otherwise,
// the scheduler will drift them as it sees fit.

I don't want to lock priorities.  I want both processes to run, one
with more time ticks than the other.

Also, if I put a cpu-intensive process in rtprio, the whole system
will starve on CPU.  I'll never forget the mess I have done once
in Slowlaris when I put the bytebench to run with realtime priority:
Nothing else worked: keyboard, ping, etc.  Fully frozen.  :)

Also, never start a rtprio'd file copy over paralell zip drives,
as a friend of mine did. :)

// IMO, Linux is implementing a "fairness" algorithm based on the NI value;

Isn't it what NI for ?  If not, what is it for ?

// this is not traditional UNIX behaviour.  It may favor interactive over
// batch response.  Note that he was running, effectively, batch processes;
// this was my understanding the last time I looked at the Linux scheduler.
// 
// I think Linux is wrong, FWIW.

And Solaris also, by peeking at my measures on the first post.

					Jonny

--
Joao Carlos Mendes Luis			jonny@gta.ufrj.br
+55 21 290-4698				jonny@coppe.ufrj.br
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro	UFRJ/COPPE/CISI
PGP fingerprint: 29 C0 50 B9 B6 3E 58 F2  83 5F E3 26 BF 0F EA 67



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712112013.SAA00694>