From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: allow users with rtprio rlimit to change from SCHED_IDLE policy
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:28:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D657BEE.4040608@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298476805.2217.791.camel@twins>
On 02/23/2011 08:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 07:52 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 02/23/2011 03:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 12:13 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Peter Zijlstra<peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 13:04 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>> As it stands, users with rtprio rlimit permissions can change their policy from
>>>>>> SCHED_OTHER to SCHED_FIFO and back. They can change to SCHED_IDLE, but not back
>>>>>> to SCHED_FIFO. If they have the rtprio permission, they should be able to. Once
>>>>>> in SCHED_FIFO, they could go back to SCHED_OTHER. This patch allows users with
>>>>>> rtprio permission to change out of SCHED_IDLE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ingo, can you remember the rationale for this?
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that SCHED_IDLE is very near nice-20, and we can do:
>>>>>
>>>>> peterz@twins:~$ renice 5 -p $$
>>>>> 1867: old priority 0, new priority 5
>>>>> peterz@twins:~$ renice 0 -p $$
>>>>> 1867: old priority 5, new priority 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Which would suggest that we should be able to return to SCHED_OTHER
>>>>> RLIMIT_NICE-20.
>>>>
>>>> I dont remember anything subtle there - most likely we just forgot about that spot
>>>> when adding RLIMIT_RTPRIO support.
>>>
>>> Ah, I was arguing we should allow it regardless of RLIMIT_RTPRIO, based
>>> on RLIMIT_NICE, it is after all a change to SCHED_OTHER, not
>>> SCHED_FIFO/RR.
>>
>> So we need an OR test of RLIMIT_NICE | RLIMIT_RTPRIO ?
>
> Just RLIMIT_NICE I think.
Agreed.
>
>> The reason I keep
>> coming back to RTPRIO is it allows the user to change to
>> SCHED_(FIFO|RR), and from there they can change to anything they want -
>
> Hmm,. is that so? I would think that even if you're SCHED_FIFO changing
> back to SCHED_OTHER ought to make you respect RLIMIT_NICE.
You are correct, no gaps here.
>
> That is, even if you're a SCHED_FIFO-1 task due to RLIMIT_RTPRIO, when
> you switch back to SCHED_OTHER I would expect you not to be able to
> switch to a lower nice than RLIMIT_NICE-20.
>
> Now, if this isn't actually so I think we ought to make it so.
>
>> so why force two steps? Perhaps the argument is to keep the meaning of
>> the RLIMITs precise, and if you want to go from IDLE->OTHER you had
>> better properly set RLIMIT_NICE - maybe I just convinced myself.
>
> Right
>
>> Shall I respin the patch to reflect that?
>
> Please.
How about this:
>From b66e1a5b1e61476c1af0095f16c666b94664f7f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:37:07 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] sched: allow users with sufficient RLIMIT_NICE to change from SCHED_IDLE policy
The current scheduler implementation returns -EPERM when trying to change from
SCHED_IDLE to SCHED_OTHER or SCHED_BATCH. Since SCHED_IDLE is considered to be
equivalent to a nice 20, changing to another policy should be allowed provided
the RLIMIT_NICE is accounted for.
This patch allows the following test-case to pass with RLIMIT_NICE=40, but still
fail with RLIMIT_NICE=10 when the calling process is run from a typical shell
(nice 0, or 20 in rlimit terms).
int main()
{
int ret;
struct sched_param sp;
sp.sched_priority = 0;
/* switch to SCHED_IDLE */
ret = sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_IDLE, &sp);
printf("setscheduler IDLE: %d\n", ret);
if (ret) return ret;
/* switch back to SCHED_OTHER */
ret = sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_OTHER, &sp);
printf("setscheduler OTHER: %d\n", ret);
return ret;
}
$ ulimit -e
40
$ ./test
setscheduler IDLE: 0
setscheduler OTHER: 0
$ ulimit -e 10
$ ulimit -e
10
$ ./test
setscheduler IDLE: 0
setscheduler OTHER: -1
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CC: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
---
kernel/sched.c | 11 +++++++----
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 18d38e4..9bf6284 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4822,12 +4822,15 @@ recheck:
param->sched_priority > rlim_rtprio)
return -EPERM;
}
+
/*
- * Like positive nice levels, dont allow tasks to
- * move out of SCHED_IDLE either:
+ * Treat SCHED_IDLE as nice 20. Only allow a switch to
+ * SCHED_NORMAL if the RLIMIT_NICE would normally permit it.
*/
- if (p->policy == SCHED_IDLE && policy != SCHED_IDLE)
- return -EPERM;
+ if (p->policy == SCHED_IDLE && policy != SCHED_IDLE) {
+ if (!can_nice(p, TASK_NICE(p)))
+ return -EPERM;
+ }
/* can't change other user's priorities */
if (!check_same_owner(p))
--
1.7.1
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-23 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-22 21:04 [PATCH 0/2] sched: SCHED_BATCH fixes Darren Hart
2011-02-22 21:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: allow SCHED_BATCH to preempt SCHED_IDLE tasks Darren Hart
2011-02-23 4:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-02-23 5:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-02-23 5:33 ` Darren Hart
2011-03-04 11:49 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Allow " tip-bot for Darren Hart
2011-02-22 21:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: allow users with rtprio rlimit to change from SCHED_IDLE policy Darren Hart
2011-02-23 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-23 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-23 11:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-23 11:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-23 15:52 ` Darren Hart
2011-02-23 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-23 16:07 ` Darren Hart
2011-02-23 21:28 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2011-02-24 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-04 11:49 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Allow users with sufficient RLIMIT_NICE " tip-bot for Darren Hart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D657BEE.4040608@linux.intel.com \
--to=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.