Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/11/25/22:18:18
Robert,
Well, I guess it's a good thing I sent that to the list (given that I
stated inaccurate information), but I thought I was replying to Thomas
privately. (He used that "thomas <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>" address even though
the message to which I replied was sent to me only--I just hit reply
without looking at the return address, since we've been working on the
problem with "mkisofs" piped to "cdrecord.")
Anyway, thanks for clearing up the Windows priority misinformation I sent
out. I guess if I would have read the MSDN tech not Thomas referred me to
first, I wouldn't have said that...
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
At 18:06 2002-11-25, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 14:00, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind is that while Unix (and work-alikes) has a -20
> > (best scheduling priority) ... +20 (worst priority) range, Windows has
> only
> > the six distinct levels. I don't know how Cygwin maps the Unix nice values
> > to the Windows priorities, offhand. Probably it's a linear mapping.
> >
> > I haven't had a chance to read the information about scheduling in
> Windows,
> > but I will. Thanks for referring me to it.
>
>Windows has (offhand) ~ 30 scheduling levels. It has priority classes,
>which 'group' processes, and then relative priorities within each
>class.IIRC you can check sched,cc via CVS to see the actual mapping I
>used, it's not linear as such, but nearly so.
>
>Thomas,
>
>Those tests show nothing other than the time it takes to push the iso
>through to a bitbucket. Unless there is serious other load on the CPU, the
>time *should* be constant.
>
>Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -