Morning Ken, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> [20051122 01:21:18 +0000]: > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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 ;) > Con complained about that one too, rightly so. If you look more recently you will see that the default is actually now '0' so nice'd processes do count towards the business calculation....I guess I could submit *another* more or less duplicate patch to really confuse things to rename the sysfs entry again and it to expect a huge prime number to ignore nice'd processes ;) Guess you can go back to your initscript and remove that entry :P Cheers Alex > Ken > -- > das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- _________________________________ < Absence makes the heart forget. > --------------------------------- \ ^__^ \ (oo)\_______ (__)\ )\/\ ||----w | || ||
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Ken Moffat <[email protected]>
- [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
- Prev by Date: Re: what is our answer to ZFS?
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/2] Convert bigsmp to use flat physical mode
- 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):
 |