Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 14:54 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> > The last three parameters look to be output only as I've not yet found
> > code that reads it, and __getparam_dl() doesn't even appear to set
> > used_runtime.
> > 
> Yeah, just kind of statistical reporting of the task's behaviour. That's
> why I was in agreement with Dhaval about using schedstats for those
> (bumping the version, obviously). What do you think?

So its pure output?  In that case its not really a nice fit for
sched_param, however..

I'm not really a fan of schedstat, esp if you have to use it very
frequently, the overhead of open()+read()+close() + parsing text is
quite high.

Then again, if people are really going to use this (big if I guess) we
could add yet another syscall for this or whatever.

> > One thing you can do is add some padding, versioning and void*
> > extentions are doable for the setparam() path, but getparam() is going
> > to be mighty interesting.
> > 
> Mmm... So, tell me if I got it well: I remove the last three parameters
> (e.g., moving them toward schedstats) and add (besides _var and _max)
> some padding? It that correct?

grmbl, so I was going to say, just pad it to a nice 2^n size, but then I
saw that struct timespec is defined as two long's, which means we're
going to have to do compat crap.

Thomas is there a sane time format in existence? I thought the whole
purpose of timeval/timespec was to avoid having to use a u64, but then
using longs as opposed to int totally defeats the purpose. 

> what about the len <== sizeof(struct sched_param2) in
> sched_{set,get}{param,scheduler}2()... Does this still make sense, or
> are we removing it? 

Since we're going for a constant sized structure we might as well take
it out.