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

From: Ken Moffat
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 06:38:19 EST

Hi Alex,

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:

Morning Ken,

Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [20051122 01:21:18 +0000]:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:

Con complained about that one too, rightly so. If you look more recently you
will see that the default is actually now '0' so nice'd processes do count
towards the business calculation....I guess I could submit *another* more or
less duplicate patch to really confuse things to rename the sysfs entry again
and it to expect a huge prime number to ignore nice'd processes ;)

Guess you can go back to your initscript and remove that entry :P



If the default is that nice'd processes do count, then I'm happy (and I've yet again showed my lack of understanding). Thanks.

das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce