From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel@kolivas.org, ankitjain1580@yahoo.com, mingo@elte.hu,
rml@tech9.net
Subject: Re: Difference in priority
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:15:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cone.1097626558.804486.12364.502@pc.kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1097542651.2666.7860.camel@cube
Albert Cahalan writes:
> Con Kolivas writes:
>> Ankit Jain wrote:
>
>>> if somebody knows the difference b/w /PRI of both
>>> these commands because both give different results
>>>
>>> ps -Al
>>> & top
>>>
>>> as per priority rule we can set priority upto 0-99
>>> but top never shows this high priority
>>
>> Priority values 0-99 are real time ones and 100-139 are normal
>> scheduling ones. RT scheduling does not change dynamic priority while
>> running wheras normal scheduling does (between 100-139). top shows the
>> value of the current dynamic priority in the PRI column as the current
>> dynamic priority-100. If you have a real time task in top it shows as a
>> -ve value. ps -Al seems to show the current dynamic priority+60.
>
> What would you like to see? There are numerous
> competing ideas of reality. There's also the matter
> of history and standards. I'd gladly "fix" ps, if
> people could agree on what "fix" would mean.
>
> Various desirable but conflicting traits include:
>
> a. for normal idle processes, PRI matches NI
> b. for RT processes, PRI matches RT priority
> c. for RT processes, PRI is negative of RT priority
> d. PRI is the unmodified value seen in /proc
> e. PRI is never negative
> f. low PRI is low priority (SysV "pri" keyword)
> g. low PRI is high priority (UNIX "PRI", SysV "opri")
> h. PRI matches some kernel-internal value
> i. PRI is in the range -99 to 999 (not too wide)
I can't say I've ever felt strongly about it. Wish I knew what was the best
way. If we change the range of RT priority range by increasing it from 100
to say 1000 then any arbitrary value to subtract will be wrong. How about
just leaving the absolute dynamic priority value? Then we don't have any
negative values confusing it, it isn't affected by increasing the range of
RT priorities, and better priority values still are lower in value.
Cheers,
Con
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-13 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-12 0:57 Difference in priority Albert Cahalan
2004-10-13 0:15 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2004-10-13 1:17 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-10-13 1:26 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-13 4:58 ` Lee Revell
2004-10-13 5:08 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-10-13 5:39 ` Lee Revell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-11 12:17 Ankit Jain
2004-10-11 12:35 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-11 12:43 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-12 9:28 ` Ankit Jain
2004-10-12 10:40 ` Con Kolivas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cone.1097626558.804486.12364.502@pc.kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=ankitjain1580@yahoo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.