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

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

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 <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>
 > >
 > 
 >  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