On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 12:12:02PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> [...]
> > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
> > important.
>
> Please don't, this assumption is quite wrong. I use nice just to be
> 'nice' to other users. I can run my *important* CPU hog simulation
> nice +10 in order to let other people get more CPU when the need it.
> But if you put the logic "niced == not important" somewhere into the
> kernel, nobody will use nice anymore. I'd rather give a bonus to niced
> processes.
I could not agree more. Normally, you'd better kill a foreground task
(running nice 0) than selecting one of those background jobs for some
reasons:
* The foreground job can be restarted by the interactive user
(Most likely, it will be only netscape anyway)
* The background job probably is the more useful one which has been running
since a longer time (computations, ...)
* If we put any policy like this into the kernel at all, I'd rather
encourage the usage of nice instead of discouraging it.
I assume here backgrd job == niced job, which mostly is the case in reality.
Regards,
-- Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Eindhoven, NL GPG key: See mail header, key servers Linux kernel development SuSE GmbH, Nuernberg, FRG SCSI, Security
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST