Messages in this thread | | | From | Stefan Seyfried <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice' | Date | Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:07:01 +0100 |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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' caclulation. > > And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet > to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default > for ondemand.
i think that 1 is the correct default for ondemand. And i know that discussion is fruitless - everybody has its own preference, i prefer battery runtime before almost everything else :-) -- Stefan Seyfried \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices \ wanted to be paid for what I write." SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \ -- Leonard Cohen
- 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/
| |