Hi, Con Kolivas <[email protected]> [20051111 10:12:19 +1100]: > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:00, 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 '0'; meaning nice'd processes > > *are* counted towards the 'business' caclulation. > > My 'nice'd compiles thank you from the bottom of their little cc1 hearts for > changing your mind. > Well I succumbed as there are going to be some rather annoyed amd64 users out there wondering why all their nice'd processes are taking forever to compile...however it would be kinda of amusing; from my SparcClassic LX perspective :) Cheers Alex > Cheers, > Con -- _______________________________________ / An aphorism is never exactly true; it \ | is either a half-truth or | | one-and-a-half truths. | | | \ -- Karl Kraus / --------------------------------------- \ ^__^ \ (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: 2.6.14-mm2
- Next by Date: Re: [-mm patch] USB_LIBUSUAL shouldn't be user-visible
- 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):
 |