On Friday 12 June 2009, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:25 -0700, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Friday 12 June 2009, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > What does ignore_nice under cpufreq/ondemand say? > > > > Right, that's 1 (was not aware that existed :-P) > > And changing it to 0 solves the problem. > > OK. Good to know that there are no kernel bugs with honoring > ignore_nice_load setting. :) > > > Next question is: how and why does it get set? > > As userland has not changed (AFAIK), my first suspect remains the > > kernel. > > Kernel never sets this. It is initialized to 0 and provides a /sys > interface to user. I think it is set by some user app > (gnome-power-manager or some other app like that). That explains why it > is 0 initially after boot and gets changed later. > > The support for ignore_nice_load=1 was broken in kernel for a short > while (arounf 2.6.28, IIRC). That may be the reason why this behavior > was not noticed earlier. Thanks for the info. I'll see if I can figure out what's responsible. At least I know where to look now. Cheers, FJP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
