Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:38:04 +0000 (GMT) | From | Ken Moffat <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice' |
| |
Hi Alex,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> Morning Ken, > > Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> [20051122 01:21:18 +0000]: >> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote: >> > Con complained about that one too, rightly so. If you look more recently you > will see that the default is actually now '0' so nice'd processes do count > towards the business calculation....I guess I could submit *another* more or > less duplicate patch to really confuse things to rename the sysfs entry again > and it to expect a huge prime number to ignore nice'd processes ;) > > Guess you can go back to your initscript and remove that entry :P > > Cheers > > Alex >
If the default is that nice'd processes do count, then I'm happy (and I've yet again showed my lack of understanding). Thanks.
Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce | |