Perhaps you did not give adequate consideration to my argument. You might
want to re-read it.
> I think I have another solution for the problem. We
> demote the problem to it's original minimum level when
> it uses the CPU slice completely, and we demote it two
> levels down when it doesn't completely finish it's CPU
> quantum.
I think this is open to abuse. Again, please reconsider my argument.
I could be wrong, but I don't think you have effectively shot down my
argument. A scheduling policy that is wide open to abuse is unacceptable.
I appreciate the ideas and feedback, so I hope you don't get the
impression that I don't.
ttyl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam McKee phone: (306) 343-0881 (home)
(306) 933-1544 (work)
Programmer/Analyst (306) 956-4070 (voice-mail/pager)
SED Systems, Inc. email: amckee@poboxes.com
===============================================================================
Just say NO to IE 4.0. <http://www.sun.com/announcement/>
===============================================================================
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Thanks for using NetForward!
> http://www.netforward.com
> v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Adam McKee wrote:
>
> Rik.
> +-----------------------------+------------------------------+
> | For Linux mm-patches, go to | "I'm busy managing memory.." |
> | my homepage (via LinuxHQ). | H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl |
> | ...submissions welcome... | http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ |
> +-----------------------------+------------------------------+
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu