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 '0'; meaning nice'd processes
*are* 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 <[email protected]>
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:00, 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 '0'; meaning nice'd processes
> *are* counted towards the 'business' caclulation.
My 'nice'd compiles thank you from the bottom of their little cc1 hearts for
changing your mind.
Cheers,
Con
Hi,
Con Kolivas <[email protected]> [20051111 10:12:19 +1100]:
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:00, 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 '0'; meaning nice'd processes
> > *are* counted towards the 'business' caclulation.
>
> My 'nice'd compiles thank you from the bottom of their little cc1 hearts for
> changing your mind.
>
Well I succumbed as there are going to be some rather annoyed amd64 users out
there wondering why all their nice'd processes are taking forever to
compile...however it would be kinda of amusing; from my SparcClassic LX
perspective :)
Cheers
Alex
> Cheers,
> Con
--
_______________________________________
/ An aphorism is never exactly true; it \
| is either a half-truth or |
| one-and-a-half truths. |
| |
\ -- Karl Kraus /
---------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>Alexander Clouter
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:11 AM
>To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>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