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

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:22 pm, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:21:18AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
>  > 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 ;)
>
> The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah,
> this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears
> in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way.
>
> I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do,
> we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo
> seems ultimately pointless.

Eh? I thought he was agreeing with niced processes running full speed but that 
he misunderstood that that was the new default. Oh well I should have just 
shut up.

Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/