Con, Con Kolivas <[email protected]> [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
- References:
- [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- From: Alexander Clouter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- Next by Date: Documentation for CPU hotplug support
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- Index(es):
 |