On 8/10/07, André Braga <meianoite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7/26/07, Salvatore Benedetto <emitrax@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyway, talking about scheduling and nice command, instead of having an > O(1) > > scheduler, which I'm not a fan of, > > Why? Because, as far as I understand, O(1) means that not matter how many processes are scheduled, the scheduler will always take the same amount of time to schedule the next processes (or thread). Now, this look to me more as a hard real-time feature than a scheduler for Desktop. It might be efficient when you are working under heavy load, but at the same time, very inefficient when you only have few processes running, that's why I'm not a big fan of O(1) for Desktop. :) > why not having a scheduler that gets it right 95% of the time, > > How about 100% of the time? :) I can believe you can achieve 99%, but not 100% :) > as Con says in his interview, and then give the user > > the possibility to choose which application should get more attention by > the > > CPU by simply right clicking on the top bar > > of the window application, instead of having to open a terminal and use > > nice? > > This is not intuitive, this is micromanagement of computational > resources. More about this on the eventual blog post. Could it be done without much changes in the scheduler ? Salvo -- Salvatore Benedetto (a.k.a. emitrax) Student of Computer and Telecommunications Engineering University of Messina (Italy) www.messinalug.org