Re: [patch 1/1] cpufreq_conservative/ondemand: invert meaning of 'ignore nice'
From: Dave Jones
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 10:29:53 EST
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:11:11PM +0000, 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.
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c \
> --- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c 2005-10-03 \
> 20:05:30.742334750 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c 2005-10-06 \
> 21:10:47.785133750 +0100 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
This patch is horribly word-wrapped. Please resend.
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/