TimeHorse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:30 am, Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Interestingly enough this was changed in recent linux kernels.
> > Process levels in linus kernels are logarithmic now, whereas before
> > they weren't (but I wouldn't like to say exactly what
On Feb 22, 4:30 am, Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interestingly enough this was changed in recent linux kernels.
> Process levels in linus kernels are logarithmic now, whereas before
> they weren't (but I wouldn't like to say exactly what!).
Wow! That's a VERY good point. I ran a
TimeHorse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, on the one hand AmigaOS support where -128 -> p = 0.0 and +127
> -> p = 1.0 would be a good example of why simply using a 41 point UNIX
> scale is defecient in representing all possible priorities, but apart
> from the support AmigaOS argument, you
On Feb 21, 1:17 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why imagine... AmigaOS ran -128..+127 (though in practice, one never
> went above +20 as the most time critical system processes ran at that
> level; User programs ran at 0, the Workbench [desktop] ran at +1... I
> think fil
On Feb 20, 10:15 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Because UNIX uses priorities between +20 and -20 and Windows, via
> | Process and Thread priorities, allows settings between 0 and 31, a
> | uniform setting for each system should be derived. This would be
> | accomplished by giving
| Because UNIX uses priorities between +20 and -20 and Windows, via
| Process and Thread priorities, allows settings between 0 and 31, a
| uniform setting for each system should be derived. This would be
| accomplished by giving process priority in terms of a floating-point
| value between 0.0 an
