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

[Stefan Seyfried]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> 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.

i think that 1 is the correct default for ondemand.
And i know that discussion is fruitless - everybody has its own
preference, i prefer battery runtime before almost everything else :-)
-- 
Stefan Seyfried                  \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I
QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices      \ wanted to be paid for what I write."
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \                    -- Leonard Cohen

-
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/