Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com> writes: > On Jan 6, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Alexander Best wrote: > >> On Fri Jan 7 11, Anonymous wrote: >>> Alexander Best <arun...@freebsd.org> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu Jan 6 11, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>> Note that that usage is rather pointless since it means you apply rtprio >>>>> to >>>>> the 'rtprio' process that is about to exit. :) >>>> >>>> yeah but at least it makes the usage of -X consistent. ;) also consider the >>>> following: the current shell has idle priority and you want to run rtprio >>>> in >>>> normal priority. then rtprio -t -0 would be a neat way of doing >>>> rtprio -t rtprio. ;) wel...not quite, because the priotity gets set to >>>> "NORMAL" >>>> when rtprio is almost finished running. ;) >>> >>> I think it'd be useful if the syntax allowed smth like >>> >>> $ rtprio 1 -0 -111 -222 -333 -444 -555 ... >> >> defenately, but that would require quite some code. also please bear in mind: >> in its current form rtprio *DOES* process -0. my code doesn't change that. >> the >> only thing that it changes is that before hand -0 was processed *AND* then >> also >> executed. now the execution doesn't take place. > > Same thing, no code change: > > sh -c 'for i in 1 -0 -111 -222 -333 -444 -555; do rtprio $i; done' > > Yes, there's more of a processing cost to doing it this way > with exec/fork jazz and shell logic
I was thinking about rtprio(1) raising its own priority using syntax like $ rtprio num -0 ... or $ rtprio -t -0 ... so that subsequent calls to rtprio(2) are under new priority. Not sure if it makes difference on heavily loaded system. > -- but how often do you execute > rtprio, and is the required code change really necessary? Simple is > better in my book. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
