lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-22 02:23    [W:0.231 / U:7.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site