Author Topic: Bug with the "below normal" , "above normal" , "real time" priorities (Read 43,418 times)

shmate · « **on:** February 26, 2007, 12:58 PM »

Hi!

I'm trying this nice unique utility, but unfortunately it may have a problematic behavior:

PT misbehave processes with the "below normal" , "above normal" and "real time" priorities.

Example:
I started Notepad.exe with "below normal" priority.
I opened a big heavy file that demands high CPU usage.

This will trigger PT to Decrease the process priority to "low" priority.

After Notepad.exe succeed to open the big file it stopped demands high CPU usage.
Hence PT should restore the process to its previous original priority (which is "below normal").
But instead PT increased the priority to "Normal" and after a while to "high"

In addition, PT continues to increase the priority unstoppably!

I attached my Configuration (although to my understanding this misbehavior is not caused by the PT Configuration)

Thank you,
Shmate

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2007, 08:07 AM »

Thank you for the report Shmate - I agree with you about what PT *should* do, and I will try to fix it in the next week or two! I hope you will stay around to help test. (ps. you can email me at mouser@donationcoder.com) to remind me or talk about this problem as I work on it.

-mouser (Jesse)

shmate · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2007, 11:01 AM »

Thank you Mouser for the quick answer

I would be glad to help.

Shmate

shmate · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2007, 03:57 AM »

Hello,

Is there any progress ?

I am here, if help would be needed

Shmate

mouser · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:08 AM »

THanks for reminding me -- i've just moved and so lost a couple weeks of time.. It's on my todo list.

shmate · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2007, 04:20 AM »

My best congratulations !!

Shmate

mouser · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2007, 06:59 PM »

I'll be working on this for the update coming this month.

shmate · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2007, 12:46 AM »

Quote from: mouser on April 11, 2007, 06:59 PM

I'll be working on this for the update coming this month.

Hi Mouser,

Is there any news ?
I am long waiting for a bug-fix . (since February actually

)

Thank you
Shmate

.

mouser · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2007, 02:22 AM »

Sorry, i forgot about it, i will put it back on top of my todo list.

shmate · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2008, 04:24 AM »

.

Quote from: mouser on March 18, 2007, 04:08 AM

THanks for reminding me -- i've just moved and so lost a couple weeks of time.. It's on my todo list.

Quote from: mouser on April 11, 2007, 06:59 PM

I'll be working on this for the update coming this month.

Quote from: mouser on October 01, 2007, 02:22 AM

Sorry, i forgot about it, i will put it back on top of my todo list.

Hi Mouser,

Is there any news ?
I am long waiting for a bug-fix . (since February 2007 till 2008)

Thank you
Shmate

.

mouser · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2008, 02:21 PM »

I apologize I've just been working on a project that will be taking most of my time all the way through february, but i do promise their will be a real Process Tamer update with this bug fix as soon as i get a little free time. I'll aim for March.

shmate · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2009, 10:55 PM »

Any news to this bug ?

f0dder · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2009, 03:14 AM »

mouser · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2009, 07:45 PM »

thank you for reminding me -- you might have noticed that i FINALLY got around to updating Process Tamer after a long break.. so i'll see if i can take a look at this now.

shmate · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2009, 03:03 AM »

I hope you will find time for this bug.

.

shmate · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2010, 01:24 AM »

Reminder:
This bug is very annoying

.

mouser · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2010, 09:53 PM »

this thread is to my everlasting shame

ok let me try to fix once again.

Kruskal · « **Reply #17 on:** August 12, 2010, 11:15 PM »

I could have asked my question in a new thread, but it seemed to fit in here:

When I set a process Force Normal, say, is it still subject to CPU Smoothing? I assume from the above that it is and "should be". That is what I want to happen. Is it?

But in general, it seems as though it should be an option. That is Force and Ignore are really orthogonal concepts. Am I right in this? Is this generally recognized as a possible improvement to this wonderful program?

Thanks -- Vincent

mouser · « **Reply #18 on:** August 12, 2010, 11:39 PM »

My memory is that setting any Force option will keep it from being "tamed", because taming by definition means changing its priority to a lower level.

So normally if one sets a process to "Force Below Normal" you are telling Process Tamer: "don't bother watching this and assigning it a low priority when it hogs the cpu, instead just always keep it below normal priority".

Can you give me an example case of when you'd want it forced to something AND at the same time want PT to watch it and reduce its priority to something else when it starts using too much of the cpu?

Kruskal · « **Reply #19 on:** August 13, 2010, 12:10 AM »

Quote from: mouser on August 12, 2010, 11:39 PM

My memory is that setting any Force option will keep it from being "tamed", because taming by definition means changing its priority to a lower level.

So normally if one sets a process to "Force Below Normal" you are telling Process Tamer: "don't bother watching this and assigning it a low priority when it hogs the cpu, instead just always keep it below normal priority".

Can you give me an example case of when you'd want it forced to something AND at the same time want PT to watch it and reduce its priority to something else when it starts using too much of the cpu?

The example is in my other recent post, "Can Process Tamer tame Firefox ?". Firefox was running High and using 98%+ CPU. I don't know why it was High. If I changed it to Normal in the Task Manager, it soon went back to High. So I wanted ProcessTamer to set it Normal, but it still needed taming.

The final wrinkle of the story is that my changes to the ProcessTamer Config tamed Firefox BUT there was nothing in the Log to show how. Changing the Config tamed it but ProcessTamer did nothing. (See the other thread.)

Thanks -- Vincent

Kruskal · « **Reply #20 on:** August 13, 2010, 04:00 AM »

Quote from: mouser on August 12, 2010, 11:39 PM

My memory is that setting any Force option will keep it from being "tamed", because taming by definition means changing its priority to a lower level.

So normally if one sets a process to "Force Below Normal" you are telling Process Tamer: "don't bother watching this and assigning it a low priority when it hogs the cpu, instead just always keep it below normal priority".

Can you give me an example case of when you'd want it forced to something AND at the same time want PT to watch it and reduce its priority to something else when it starts using too much of the cpu?

And, also, the original post in this thread defined the bug that this thread is about as (my words):

He used ProcessTamer to force Notepad to Below Normal. Then ProcessTamer lowered its priority due to very heavy usage. Then ProcessTamer raised its priority back to Below Normal when the abnormality cleared up.

And, then the bug, ProcessTamer kept raising the priority forever.

That's why I thought it was established that forcing priority only set a high limit and ProcessTamer would lower it as needed for CPU Smoothing.

Thanks -- Vincent

mouser · « **Reply #21 on:** August 13, 2010, 05:30 PM »

good points.. i guess i have to dive back into process tamer for a bit and see what i can find.

shmate · « **Reply #22 on:** August 14, 2010, 06:13 PM »

Hello mouser & Kruskal

Quote

He used ProcessTamer to force Notepad to Below Normal

No that wasn't the case. I didn't use PT to force any priority.
I used other utility (Process Explorer) to change the notepad priority to Below Normal.
The bug explained in this thread is not related to the FORCE rules of PT.

As explained PT misbehave processes with the "below normal" , "above normal" and "real time" priorities. in that mean it doesn't restore them to their previous original priority But instead PT increased the priority to "Normal" and after a while to "high" priority continuously.
My first post demonstrate it visually.

This bug was exposed more than three years ago (on Feb 2007). I hope it will finally be fixed (it's about time ..... am i wrong?)

Thanks

mouser · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2010, 12:28 AM »

you are not wrong.. i shall try.

Russ V · « **Reply #24 on:** August 25, 2010, 09:59 PM »

shmate: i'm not sure if this applies but i use notepad++ to open large text files. 100 meg +
http://notepad-plus-plus.org/