Lines Matching refs:was

11 Unfortunately that was not that easy to implement under the old
13 support was historically coupled to timeslice length, and timeslice
14 units were driven by the HZ tick, so the smallest timeslice was 1/HZ.
41 changing the ABI to extend priorities was discarded early on.)
48 this was long ago when hardware was weaker and caches were smaller, and
60 coupling to timeslices and granularity it was not really viable.
63 about Linux's nice level support was its asymmetry around the origin
79 depend on the nice level of the parent shell - if it was at nice -10 the
80 CPU split was different than if it was at +5 or +10.
82 A third complaint against Linux's nice level support was that negative
91 enough), the scheduler was decoupled from 'time slice' and HZ concepts
92 (and granularity was made a separate concept from nice levels) and thus
93 it was possible to implement better and more consistent nice +19