Re: setpriority() again

Hi Tim,

> > As you are not using GLib thread priorities in beast, I do indeed think,
> > it can be fixed for you, even after thoroughly rereading your mail.
> yes, it can be fixed for beast by telling glib to stay hands-off of the
> nice level.
> what's with the other cases though? i.e. what would be the cases
> to actually use pid based priorities:
> a) a user wants the priority of his program be increased, but
>    g_thread_set_priority() needs root for that => doesn't work.

I thinks, that also happens on platforms with thread priority support.
Such is live.

> b) a user wants the priority of his program/number-cruncher be lowered.
>    he uses g_thread_set_priority(LOW) and things apear to work. that is,
>    until he or someone else starts the program as nice -11, then it throws
>    a warning because due to LOW it tries to *increase* priority to 10.

No, because G_THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL is the priority at program start.


> thus my votum is to scratch that API, unless linux has real priorities.

Ok, lets remove the PID surrogate. Any objections? I'll do it tomorrow

Sebastian Wilhelmi                 |            här ovanför alla molnen
mailto:seppi seppi de              |     är himmlen så förunderligt blå                    |

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]