From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?kandan=20bala?= <kandanb@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: dosemu with different speed
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:44:48 +0100 (BST)
Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20040428064448.47105.qmail@web11707.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20040425000022.GC24996@dbz.icequake.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Return-path: <linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040425000022.GC24996@dbz.icequake.net>
List-Id: <linux-msdos.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net>


hi,
   i run three dos sessions connects to novell server.
If i run some programs in C: is running normal.
when I run application from novell (G:>) is become
slow. Is the sessions not receiving network packets.
Among three sessions, I want to run one of the session

fast.
Thanks
with regards,
-kandan

 --- Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net>
wrote: > 
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 09:32:39PM +0100, Andrew
> Brooks wrote:
> > Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "speed"?  You want different
> scheduling
> > > priorities
> > > for each one?  Can just use 'nice'.  
> >
> > I have a DOS application which must respond to an
> interrupt within a
> > certain amount of time.  I have tried using nice
> to raise the priority
> > but it still misses occasionally.
> 
> Yep. DOSEMU is not DOS.  If you have realtime
> constraints, we must look
> into calling sched_setscheduler() on user's behalf
> to set policy to
> SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO.  But that will require root
> permission.  It
> is also possible for your machine to be completely
> locked-up if the DOS
> task fails in any way.
> 
> > Do you think it's safe to run dosemu in the
> realtime scheduling class?
> > (in which case I would leave hogthreshold at 1 =
> nicest)
> 
> I think DOSEMU itself is mostly safe.  The problem
> is the DOS program
> you are running.  If it ever goes into an
> uncontrollable loop (i.e.
> polling with interrupts disabled), you are screwed
> and will have to
> reboot when running SCHED_FIFO.  SCHED_RR should not
> be so bad because
> the scheduler is guaranteed to seize control
> periodically, but only
> other SCHED_RR processes are guaranteed to get any
> CPU time.  So you
> would have to have a SCHED_RR bash running too in
> order to be able to
> gain control of the other process.
> 
> -- 
> Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
name=signature.asc
 

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html