Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site callan.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!callan!tim
From: tim@callan.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Load control and intelligence in schedulers
Message-ID: <275@callan.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Oct-84 20:04:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: callan.275
Posted: Fri Oct 19 20:04:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 14:59:06 EDT
References: <151@desint.UUCP> <4451@utzoo.UUCP> <161@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: tim@callan.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Organization: Callan Data Systems, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 15

In article <161@desint.UUCP> ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff (Geoff Kuenning) says:
>
>Programs that try to outsmart schedulers can be a serious problem.
>But I wasn't talking about rewarding terminal output.  It is terminal
>*input* that drives user's perceptions of response times, and thus
>that is the only way to get a big priority kick.  Naturally, nobody
>wants to 'babysit' a compute-bound program by giving it a CR every
>second or so to keep it going (especially since a proper
>implementation would ensure that only blocking reads gave the
>priority boost).

Isn't this what auto-repeat and chewing gum are for?
-- 
					Tim Smith
			ihnp4!wlbr!callan!tim or ihnp4!cithep!tim