> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of tim Rowledge
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:48 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Help with threads

> > I like the idea of maybe changing the controller to check processes
> > that
> > want control and then use the controller loop time to bump up their
> > priority
> > to give them some processor time.  Is that a good way to manage
> > scheduling
> > time?  How responsive are the threads to changes in priority?

> Ah, good question. I think the only way you would get any real effect
> from changing the priority of a running or quiescent process would be
> to sleep it and reawaken it after the priority change. If you look at
> the Process>priority: method you'll see that there is nothing done to
> move the affected process around in any processor queues. Maybe that
> should be changed.

Definitely. It should probably be a primitive because I would also
expect if the priority were changed to one higher than the active
process that it would become the new active process immediately.

> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> A)bort, R)etry or S)elf-destruct?
>