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'
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
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-22 12:45    [W:0.035 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site