Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:21:18 +0000 (GMT) | From | Ken Moffat <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice' |
| |
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> The use of the 'ignore_nice' sysfs file is confusing to anyone using it. This > removes the sysfs file 'ignore_nice' and in its place creates a > 'ignore_nice_load' entry which defaults to '1'; meaning nice'd processes are > not counted towards the 'business' calculation. > > WARNING: this obvious breaks any userland tools that expected ignore_nice' to > exist, to draw attention to this fact it was concluded on the mailing list > that the entry should be removed altogether so the userland app breaks and so > the author can build simple to detect workaround. Having said that it seems > currently very few tools even make use of this functionality; all I could > find was a Gentoo Wiki entry. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Clouter <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk> >
Great. I get to rewrite my initscript for the ondemand governor to test for yet another kernel version, and write a 0 to yet another sysfs file, just so that any compile I start in an xterm on my desktop box can make the processor work for its living.
Just what have you cpufreq guys got against nice'd processes ? It's enough to drive a man to powernowd ;)
Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
| |