Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'

[Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 1247 bytes --]

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