> > This patch may fix the problem by giving a large bonus
> > to 'normal' processes and a smaller one to niced tasks.
> > It also removes the standard 'weight += p->priority'
> > because that one was a workaround for the bug in tty_ioctl.c
> > and we shouldn't need it any more now that that's fixed.
>
> Hi... This patch is flawed. If we use it, it'll reintroduce the
> crappy interactive response when interactive jobs compete with
> non-niced CPU-hogs.
I thought about that one the moment I had sent it :(
> If you want to use this type of approach (and it does seem sensible,
> though I haven't given it a huge amount of thought), try something like:
>
> weight += MIN(PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY,p->priority);
Or (p->priority >> 1), which will never get above
PROC_CHANGE_PENALTY except for negatively niced
processes which we want to have precedence anyway.
Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. riel@nl.linux.org |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.nl.linux.org/~riel |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/