lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.112 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site