lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.052 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site