Lines Matching refs:was

7 Unfortunately that was not that easy to implement under the old
9 support was historically coupled to timeslice length, and timeslice
10 units were driven by the HZ tick, so the smallest timeslice was 1/HZ.
37 changing the ABI to extend priorities was discarded early on.)
44 this was long ago when hardware was weaker and caches were smaller, and
56 coupling to timeslices and granularity it was not really viable.
59 about Linux's nice level support was its assymetry around the origo
75 depend on the nice level of the parent shell - if it was at nice -10 the
76 CPU split was different than if it was at +5 or +10.
78 A third complaint against Linux's nice level support was that negative
87 enough), the scheduler was decoupled from 'time slice' and HZ concepts
88 (and granularity was made a separate concept from nice levels) and thus
89 it was possible to implement better and more consistent nice +19