[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'
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

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