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

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
>Alexander Clouter
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:11 AM
>To: akpm@xxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: davej@xxxxxxxxxx; davej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert 
>meaning of 'ignore nice'
>
>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.
>
>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.
>

Wondering whether a 'version' sysfs entry in cpufreq and ondemand 
directory to make sure any change in the interfaces won't break 
the user space tools in future....

Thanks,
Venki
-
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/