--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 02:24:33AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> >On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:00:24PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>Hey. Did kern.autonicetime just disappear?
> >
> >I seem to recall a discussion about removing the autonice functionality =
as=20
> >the scheduler already penalizes long-running processes. So the sysctl ma=
y=20
> >have gone away as a result of it no longer doing anything.
>=20
> Yeah, there was a discussion about it. I didn't see a conlusion that it=
=20
> really should disappear.
>=20
> And as long as nice do anything, autonice should also do something. So=20
> do you mean we've removed "nice" altogether?

No.

The thought, as I understand it, is that the scheduler already adjusts
scheduling priorities down for long-running processes. So the
functionality that "autonice" is aimed at is already there. Having two
different systems do it is reduntant. It also means that it's very hard to=
=20
actually control it; you have two different systems doing the same thing.

The thread was on tech-kern as I recall. Please see it for details.

Take care,

Bill

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGYNYEWz+3JHUci9cRAsQvAJ0VEWgzHTFJ17i/3NVyylrtK3YnxgCgh5pe
VaNUdb7mXPFvrjiXGv2sVJM=
=Mz3+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--