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