On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 04:11:56AM -0700, Erik E. Fair wrote:
> Ah, I went looking for something like that, but mlock(2) is not
> sufficiently xref'd in the other section 2 man pages.
> 
> OK, second question, same theme: how do you mark a process such that the
> scheduler will not automatically "nice +4" after the requisite amount of
> CPU cycles have been consumed (aside from the obvious work-around of "nice
> -1")?

You can disable this feature with sysctl.

It will, however, not prevent the scheduler from lowering the scheduling
priority of processes that use lots of CPU. 

	-is

-- 
 * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from
   smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of
   smart terminals.  -- obs@burnout.demon.co.uk (obscurity)