Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: automatic re-nicing of processes Message-ID: <6460@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 13:57:11 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6460 Posted: Fri Dec 7 13:57:11 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 01:49:18 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 8 Scott Hankerson misunderstands my point. My arguement is that while a null process shouldn't be run if some other process wants to run, this should be more a general artifact of the scheduler, to treate CPU-bound processes differently from interactive processes by analysis of the process' past behavior. Many operating systems have sliding scales of priority and runtime quanta based on how interactive the process appears to be, whether it has voluntarily blocked or ran out of quanta, etc. -------