Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:13:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:13:27 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:31392 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:13:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:14:07 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: "Dimitrie O. Paun" , Ingo Molnar cc: Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Robert Love , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] "HT scheduler", sched-2.5.63-B3 Message-ID: <13680000.1046988847@flay> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 734 Lines: 18 >> yes, an ELF flag might work, or my suggestion to allow applications to >> increase their priority (up until a certain degree). > > An ELF flag might be better, as it's declarative -- it allows the kernel > to implement 'interactivity' in various ways, so we can keep tweeking it. > Priority might prove to be a bit different than interactivity, so we > better not overload the two just yet. Difficult to see how this would work. For instance, is bash interactive or a batch job? M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/