[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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 <> [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.

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