Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice' | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:31:44 +1100 |
| |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:22 pm, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:21:18AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > > 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 ;) > > The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah, > this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears > in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way. > > I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do, > we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo > seems ultimately pointless.
Eh? I thought he was agreeing with niced processes running full speed but that he misunderstood that that was the new default. Oh well I should have just shut up.
Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |