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!decvax!wivax!cadmus!harvard!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: <6544@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 07:42:39 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6544
Posted: Sun Dec  9 07:42:39 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:00:13 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.
-------