Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities | From | Albert Cahalan <> | Date | 10 Nov 2003 08:07:54 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 05:19, Herbert Xu wrote: > Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> wrote: > > > > Sure, but do it in a way that's friendly to > > all the apps and admins that only know "nice". > > > > nice_cpu sets CPU niceness > > nice_net sets net niceness > > nice_disk sets disk niceness > > ... > > nice sets all niceness values at once > > That's a user space problem. No matter what Jens > does, you can always make nice(1) do what you said.
It's not just the nice command. There's a syscall interface you know, and lots of apps use it.
#include <unistd.h> int nice(int inc);
You planning to hack ALL those apps? You'll convince BSD-centric developers to include this Linux-specific change?
Besides, the kernel load average was changed to include processes waiting for IO. It just plain makes sense to mix CPU usage with IO usage by default. Wanting different niceness for CPU and IO is a really unusual thing.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |