Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:43:04 +0000 (GMT) | From | Ken Moffat <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice' |
| |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> > 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 >
Hi Con,
looks as if I did misunderstand the default. In the last week I've seen occasional comments on this from both sides of the debate, so I read the description and got it wrong.
Now, if you gentlement will excuse me, I'll just wipe this egg off my face.
Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
| |