Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021125191218.028d9b20@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:19:06 -0800
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject: Re: nice really nice?
In-Reply-To: <1038276393.23528.366.camel@lifelesswks>
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021125185701 DOT 02a73ea8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com>
 <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021125185701 DOT 02a73ea8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

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/