dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (06/18/86)
Come on, will you please stop setting the priority of my 'run' processes to -5 ????? pretty please? And to top that, I can't seem to find where in the code the priority is determined. Otherwise, I'm going to have to automagically set the priority in the first line of my code to make sure it's 0, and I don't want to do that ( it isn't good form) but... -Matt
haddock@ti-csl (06/22/86)
>/* ---------- "1.2 RUN command STILL ISN'T FIXED!" ---------- */ > Come on, will you please stop setting the priority of my 'run' >processes to -5 ????? pretty please? And to top that, I can't seem to >find where in the code the priority is determined. I'm of the belief that RUN wasn't and isn't broken. Maybe an option to RUN would be appropriate??? > Otherwise, I'm going to have to automagically set the priority >in the first line of my code to make sure it's 0, and I don't want to >do that (it isn't good form) but... But nothing!!! If you wanted to change the priority on a Unix process you'd need to use `renice' or use `nice' on invocation of your program. This being the case you can certainly use `Cpri'. Sorry Matt, but you whine too much. -Rusty- ================================================================ *hardcopy* *electr{onic, ic}* Rusty Haddock ARPA: Haddock%TI-CSL@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA POB 226015 M/S 238 CSNET: Haddock@TI-CSL Texas Instruments Inc. USENET: {ut-sally,convex!smu,texsun}!ti-csl!haddock Dallas, Texas 75266 VOICE: (214) 995-0330
neil@amiga.UUCP (Neil Katin) (06/24/86)
In article <9300011@ti-csl> haddock@ti-csl writes: > >/* ---------- "1.2 RUN command STILL ISN'T FIXED!" ---------- */ > > > Come on, will you please stop setting the priority of my 'run' > >processes to -5 ????? pretty please? And to top that, I can't seem to > >find where in the code the priority is determined. > >I'm of the belief that RUN wasn't and isn't broken. Maybe an >option to RUN would be appropriate??? > > > Otherwise, I'm going to have to automagically set the priority > >in the first line of my code to make sure it's 0, and I don't want to > >do that (it isn't good form) but... > >But nothing!!! If you wanted to change the priority on a Unix process >you'd need to use `renice' or use `nice' on invocation of your program. >This being the case you can certainly use `Cpri'. > >Sorry Matt, but you whine too much. > > -Rusty- Sigh. Such flaming about such small issues. I have to admit that I agree on Matt on this one. The change (vis-a-vis run and setting priority to -5) has been made several times, but keeps on getting lost due to some disagreement here. Beta-2 had is set to 5 less that the parents priority (better than an absolute -5). Beta-4 will leave the priority of the child task the same as the parents. Undoubtedly some will think this is a change for the worse. Neil Katin Commodore-Amiga Inc.
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (06/25/86)
In article <1340@amiga.amiga.UUCP> neil@rocky.UUCP (Neil Katin) writes: >Sigh. Such flaming about such small issues. I have to admit that I >agree on Matt on this one. The change (vis-a-vis run and setting >priority to -5) has been made several times, but keeps on getting >lost due to some disagreement here. Beta-2 had is set to 5 less that >the parents priority (better than an absolute -5). > >Beta-4 will leave the priority of the child task the same as the parents. >Undoubtedly some will think this is a change for the worse. > > Neil Katin > Commodore-Amiga Inc. How about making it an option, like: RUN PRI=PRIORITY/K,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I'll leave figuring out how to specify both absolute and relative priorities as a problem for the reader :-). <mike
mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) (06/25/86)
----) In re: RUN setting priority to -5 Run should NOT set the priority to -5 automatically. This should DEFINITELY be an OPTION. The reason for this is the scheduler in the Amiga multitasking kernal does NOT operate in the same way as Unix. On Unix, a task with a lower priority gets less CPU time. On the Amiga, a task with a lower priority gets NO cpu time AT ALL until ALL tasks with a higher priority are in a Wait() state. This could easily lead to a lower priority process getting locked out if a computationally intensive task is running at a higher priority. All sorts of bad things can happen, too, if your program creates a task at a higher priority than itself and . . . you get the picture. -Mitsu (mitsu@well.UUCP)