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

[Con Kolivas]

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.

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