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

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

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.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Clouter <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #2: 01_inverse_ignore_nice_flag.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3704 bytes --]

diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c \
                linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
--- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-03 \
                20:05:30.742334750 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-06 \
21:10:47.785133750 +0100 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
 {
 	return	kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.idle +
 		kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.iowait +
-		( !dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
+		( dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
 		  kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.nice :
 		  0);
 }
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
 show_one(down_threshold, down_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 show_one(freq_step, freq_step);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_nice_load(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
 define_one_rw(down_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 define_one_rw(freq_step);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
 	&down_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	&freq_step.attr,
 	NULL
 };
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@
 			def_sampling_rate = (latency / 1000) *
 					DEF_SAMPLING_RATE_LATENCY_MULTIPLIER;
 			dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = def_sampling_rate;
-			dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice = 0;
+			dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice = 1;
 			dbs_tuners_ins.freq_step = 5;
 
 			dbs_timer_init();
diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c \
                linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
--- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-10-03 \
                20:05:30.742334750 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-10-06 21:10:23.979646000 \
+0100 @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
 {
 	return	kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.idle +
 		kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.iowait +
-		( !dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
+		( dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
 		  kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.nice :
 		  0);
 }
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_rate, sampling_rate);
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_load_tasks(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_rate);
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
 	&sampling_rate_max.attr,
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
 	&sampling_rate.attr,
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	NULL
 };
 
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@
 			def_sampling_rate = (latency / 1000) *
 					DEF_SAMPLING_RATE_LATENCY_MULTIPLIER;
 			dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = def_sampling_rate;
-			dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice = 0;
+			dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice = 1;
 
 			dbs_timer_init();
 		}

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

[Con Kolivas]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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' caclulation.

And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet 
to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default 
for ondemand.

Regards,
Con

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 984 bytes --]

Con,

Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> [20051111 02:48:57 +1100]:
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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' caclulation.
> 
> And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet 
> to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default 
> for ondemand.
> 
....resubmitting with alternative defaults....

Cheers

Alex

> Regards,
> Con

-- 
 ____________________________________
/ "An ounce of prevention is worth a \
\ pound of purge."                   /
 ------------------------------------
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

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 <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>


[-- Attachment #2: 01_inverse_ignore_nice_flag.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3151 bytes --]

diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c \
                linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
--- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-03 \
                20:05:30.742334750 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-06 \
21:10:47.785133750 +0100 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
 {
 	return	kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.idle +
 		kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.iowait +
-		( !dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
+		( dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
 		  kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.nice :
 		  0);
 }
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
 show_one(down_threshold, down_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 show_one(freq_step, freq_step);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_nice_load(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
 define_one_rw(down_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 define_one_rw(freq_step);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
 	&down_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	&freq_step.attr,
 	NULL
 };
diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c \
                linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
--- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-10-03 \
                20:05:30.742334750 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-10-06 21:10:23.979646000 \
+0100 @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
 {
 	return	kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.idle +
 		kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.iowait +
-		( !dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
+		( dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice ? 
 		  kstat_cpu(cpu).cpustat.nice :
 		  0);
 }
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_rate, sampling_rate);
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_load_tasks(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_rate);
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
 	&sampling_rate_max.attr,
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
 	&sampling_rate.attr,
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	NULL
 };
 

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

[Con Kolivas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 448 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]

Hi,

Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> [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 |
                ||     ||

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of 
>Alexander Clouter
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:11 AM
>To: akpm@osdl.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Cc: davej@redhat.com; davej@codemonkey.org.uk; blaisorblade@yahoo.it
>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

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

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > 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.
> 
> And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet 
> to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default 
> for ondemand.

Me. I have graphics appp here (almara), that does user interaction in 
separate thread from real workers. Yet you want real workers to run...

And consider notebook on ac power, using ondemand for acoustic management.

-- 
64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms         

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

[Stefan Seyfried]

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:11, 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' caclulation.
> 
> And just for the last time I'll argue that the default should be 0. I have yet 
> to discuss this with any laptop user who thinks that 1 is the correct default 
> for ondemand.

i think that 1 is the correct default for ondemand.
And i know that discussion is fruitless - everybody has its own
preference, i prefer battery runtime before almost everything else :-)
-- 
Stefan Seyfried                  \ "I didn't want to write for pay. I
QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices      \ wanted to be paid for what I write."
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg \                    -- Leonard Cohen

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

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:11:11PM +0000, 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' 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 <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>

 > diff -r -u -d linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c \
 >                 linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
 > --- linux-2.6.14-rc2.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-03 \
 >                 20:05:30.742334750 +0100
 > +++ linux-2.6.14-rc2/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-06 \
 > 21:10:47.785133750 +0100 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
 >  {

This patch is horribly word-wrapped. Please resend.

		Dave

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 750 bytes --]

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>

[-- Attachment #2: 01_inverse_ignore_nice_flag.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2611 bytes --]

diff -u -r linux-2.6.14.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c linux-2.6.14/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
--- linux-2.6.14.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-10-28 01:02:08.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c	2005-11-21 18:10:00.834518250 +0000
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
 show_one(down_threshold, down_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 show_one(freq_step, freq_step);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_nice_load(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
 define_one_rw(down_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 define_one_rw(freq_step);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
 	&down_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	&freq_step.attr,
 	NULL
 };
diff -u -r linux-2.6.14.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c linux-2.6.14/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
--- linux-2.6.14.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-10-28 01:02:08.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.14/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c	2005-11-21 18:10:00.862520000 +0000
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@
 show_one(sampling_rate, sampling_rate);
 show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
 show_one(up_threshold, up_threshold);
-show_one(ignore_nice, ignore_nice);
+show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
 
 static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused, 
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
 	return count;
 }
 
-static ssize_t store_ignore_nice(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+static ssize_t store_ignore_load_tasks(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	unsigned int input;
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
 define_one_rw(sampling_rate);
 define_one_rw(sampling_down_factor);
 define_one_rw(up_threshold);
-define_one_rw(ignore_nice);
+define_one_rw(ignore_nice_load);
 
 static struct attribute * dbs_attributes[] = {
 	&sampling_rate_max.attr,
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
 	&sampling_rate.attr,
 	&sampling_down_factor.attr,
 	&up_threshold.attr,
-	&ignore_nice.attr,
+	&ignore_nice_load.attr,
 	NULL
 };
 

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

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 1247 bytes --]

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 ;)

Ken
--
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

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

[Dave Jones]

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

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

[Con Kolivas]

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 <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.

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

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

[Alexander Clouter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2128 bytes --]

Morning Ken,

Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> [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 <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 ;)
> 
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 Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce


-- 
 _________________________________
< Absence makes the heart forget. >
 ---------------------------------
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed, Size: 866 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Alexander Clouter wrote:

> Morning Ken,
>
> Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> [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 Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

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

[Ken Moffat]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1058 bytes --]

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 Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

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

[Andrew Morton]

Alexander Clouter <alex@digriz.org.uk> 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)