lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [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'
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
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-22 12:40    [W:0.081 / U:1.688 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site