Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24T07:15:49Z

* Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@gmail.com> wrote:

> > (Btw., to protect against such mishaps in the future i have changed
> > the SysRq-N [SysRq-Nice] implementation in my tree to not only
> > change real-time tasks to SCHED_OTHER, but to also renice negative
> > nice levels back to 0 - this will show up in -v6. That way you'd
> > only have had to hit SysRq-N to get the system out of the wedge.)
>
> That sounds handy, particularly with idiots like me at the wheel...

by that standard i guess we tinkerers are all idiots ;)

Ingo