According to "man renice", the -n option is required to specify the increment to the nice value. This is incorrect and causes renice to act in an unexpected manner. From "man renice": > renice -n increment [-g | -p | -u] ID ... > ... > EXAMPLES > renice -n 5 -p 987 32 > renice -n -4 -g 324 76 > renice -n 4 -u 8 sas None of these work. The correct format, as shown below, is not to provide an increment with "-n", but to specify an absolute priority value: > # renice > usage: renice priority [ [ -p ] pids ] [ [ -g ] pgrps ] [ [ -u ] users ] E.g. "renice 4 -p 9168" Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Enter a renice command with the "-n" option (as per the man page). E.g. "renice -n 5 -p 9167" 2. 3. Actual Results: Renice interprets the increment as a process ID, setting its nice value to 0 if it exists. It also sets the nice value of the specified process to 0. > # renice -n 5 -p 9167 > renice: 5: getpriority: No such process > 9167: old priority 0, new priority 0 Expected Results: Either the man page should be corrected, or renice should accept the "-n" option. My system: 2.6.10-gentoo-r6 x86
you looked at renice(1p) ... renice(8) is what you want ...
Thank you, you're right. "man 8 renice" gives the correct information. Is it proper that my system has this "1p" man page, but no matching command? That seems odd, and a little misleading.
util-linux now installs a renice.1 symlink which will override 1p
