Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:46:55 +0100 | From | Toon van der Pas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities |
| |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:07:54AM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > 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?
Yes, I really would like all those apps to be hacked. Because I want to REMOVE those nice() calls, not because I want to add another piece of functionality that doesn't belong in apps in the first place.
My opinion is that it's the system administrator's job to assign nice-values to processes. Apps that do that themselves make the task of the admin harder, if not impossible.
Regards, Toon. - 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/
| |