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

From: Ken Moffat
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 20:20:53 EST

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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 ;)

das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce