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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
>
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 ;)
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:21:18AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
> >
>
> 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 ;)
The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah,
this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears
in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way.
I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do,
we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo
seems ultimately pointless.
Dave
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:22 pm, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:21:18AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote:
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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 ;)
>
> The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah,
> this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears
> in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way.
>
> I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do,
> we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo
> seems ultimately pointless.
Eh? I thought he was agreeing with niced processes running full speed but that
he misunderstood that that was the new default. Oh well I should have just
shut up.
Con
Morning Ken,
Ken Moffat <[email protected]> [20051122 01:21:18 +0000]:
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> >
>
> 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 ;)
>
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
Cheers
Alex
> Ken
> --
> das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
--
_________________________________
< Absence makes the heart forget. >
---------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
Hi Alex,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> Morning Ken,
>
> Ken Moffat <[email protected]> [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
>
> Cheers
>
> Alex
>
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.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Con Kolivas wrote:
>> > Just what have you cpufreq guys got against nice'd processes ? It's
>> > enough to drive a man to powernowd ;)
>>
>> The opinion on this one started out with everyone saying "Yeah,
>> this is dumb, and should have changed". Now that the change appears
>> in a mergable patch, the opinion seems to have swung the other way.
>>
>> I'm seriously rethinking this change, as no matter what we do,
>> we're going to make some people unhappy, so changing the status quo
>> seems ultimately pointless.
>
> Eh? I thought he was agreeing with niced processes running full speed but that
> he misunderstood that that was the new default. Oh well I should have just
> shut up.
>
> Con
>
Hi Con,
looks as if I did misunderstand the default. In the last week I've
seen occasional comments on this from both sides of the debate, so I
read the description and got it wrong.
Now, if you gentlement will excuse me, I'll just wipe this egg off my
face.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
Alexander Clouter <[email protected]> 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.
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c:226: error: 'store_ignore_nice_load' undeclared here (not in a function)