formula given below. However, each thread also has an integer
@dfn{nice} value that determines how ``nice'' the thread should be to
other threads. A @var{nice} of zero does not affect thread priority. A
-positive @var{nice}, to the maximum of 20, increases the numeric
-priority of a thread, decreasing its effective priority, and causes it
-to give up some CPU time it would otherwise receive. On the other hand,
-a negative @var{nice}, to the minimum of -20, tends to take away CPU
-time from other threads.
+positive @var{nice}, to the maximum of 20, decreases the priority of a
+thread and causes it to give up some CPU time it would otherwise receive.
+On the other hand, a negative @var{nice}, to the minimum of -20, tends
+to take away CPU time from other threads.
The initial thread starts with a @var{nice} value of zero. Other
threads start with a @var{nice} value inherited from their parent
threads ready to run (see below). If @var{load_avg} is 1, indicating
that a single thread, on average, is competing for the CPU, then the
current value of @var{recent_cpu} decays to a weight of .1 in
-@am{\log_{2/3}.1 \approx 6, ln(2/3)/ln(.1) = approx. 6} seconds; if
+@am{\log_{2/3}.1 \approx 6, ln(.1)/ln(2/3) = approx. 6} seconds; if
@var{load_avg} is 2, then decay to a weight of .1 takes @am{\log_{3/4}.1
-\approx 8, ln(3/4)/ln(.1) = approx. 8} seconds. The effect is that
+\approx 8, ln(.1)/ln(3/4) = approx. 8} seconds. The effect is that
@var{recent_cpu} estimates the amount of CPU time the thread has
received ``recently,'' with the rate of decay inversely proportional to
the number of threads competing for the CPU.