From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-05-11T06:35:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Slowing threads

------=_Part_92348_9276952.1147296919321
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It's rarely a good idea to modify the priorities of threads in Unix systems=
.
Almost all thread-schedulers will never schedule a thread if there is at
least one runnable thread with a higher priority, which explains the result=
s
you describe. Your lower-priority threads will basically only get scheduled
when they're lucky enough to find the highest-priority thread non-runnable.
If you mess with priorities, you also face the risk of priority inversions,
where a high-priority thread requires a resource held by a lower-priority
thread, and they lock each other.

Keep it simple. Sounds like the semantics of your application is to simulat=
e
users working at different rates. There's nothing there that implies a
dependence among the threads. I'd use random sleep intervals.

------=_Part_92348_9276952.1147296919321--