This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de> writes: > On Thu, Feb 28, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> 2001-06-04 patch for nice apparently changed nothing at all on linux, since >> sysdeps/unix/nice.c which was patched is overridden in >> sysdeps/unix/sysv/syscalls.list (nice), thus nice still returns 0 on >> success, not the actual new priority. >> Fix below. I have briefly tested that it works as expected on ia32 linux. > > I found another problem: according to 1003.1-2001: > > Requests for values above or below 2*{NZERO}-1 shall result in the > nice value being set to the corresponding limit. > > In the moment we return "prio + incr" and fail the test. Should we > change this to a "return getpriority (PRIO_PROCESS, 0);" or should > we recalculate the return value with help of the NZERO definition? > > A simple patch which works for me: > > 2002-03-02 Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de> > > * sysdeps/unix/nice.c: Use getpriority() for the return value > > --- sysdeps/unix/nice.c > +++ sysdeps/unix/nice.c 2002/03/02 09:40:14 > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ > > result = setpriority (PRIO_PROCESS, 0, prio + incr); > if (result != -1) > - return prio + incr; > + return getpriority (PRIO_PROCESS, 0); > else > return -1; Just for reference, the current implementation behaves this way: nice(0)=0 getpriority()=0 nice(-100)=-100 getpriority()=-20 nice(-80)=-100 getpriority()=-20 nice(-60)=-80 getpriority()=-20 nice(-40)=-60 getpriority()=-20 nice(-20)=-40 getpriority()=-20 nice(0)=-20 getpriority()=-20 nice(20)=0 getpriority()=0 nice(40)=40 getpriority()=19 nice(60)=79 getpriority()=19 nice(80)=99 getpriority()=19 nice(100)=119 getpriority()=19 A return value of 119 is defintely wrong, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |