Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
From: Alexander Clouter
Date: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 10:54:34 EST
Con,
Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> [20051111 02:48:57 +1100]:
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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' caclulation.
>
> And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet
> to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default
> for ondemand.
>
....resubmitting with alternative defaults....
Cheers
Alex
> Regards,
> Con
--
____________________________________
/ "An ounce of prevention is worth a \
\ pound of purge." /
------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature