Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 11:15, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > some quick comments within code below.
> >
> > On Wednesday 05 July 2006 09:35, Peter Williams wrote:
> >> -	unlikely((p)->policy != SCHED_NORMAL && (p)->policy != SCHED_BATCH)
> >> +	unlikely((p)->policy != SCHED_NORMAL && (p)->policy < SCHED_BATCH)
> >
> > idleprio tasks should be able to get rt_policy as well
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.  A task can only have one
> scheduling policy.  The simple (direct) definition of has_rt_policy() is
> (p->policy == SCHED_FIFO || p->policy == SCHED_RR) and the one defined
> is just a rearrangement of that with a view to minimizing overhead in
> the majority of invocations.

I meant they could get rt priority. This does look correct, sorry.

> >> +			 * Tasks currently in the background will be
> >> +			 * at BGND_PRIO priority and preemption
> >> +			 * should be enough to keep them in check provided we
> >> +			 * don't let them adversely effect tasks on the expired
> >
> > ok I'm going to risk a lart and say "affect" ?
>
> I have to refer you to the Oxford English Dictionary.

I was hoping you would.

> According to it 
> (when used as a verb):
>
> affect:  1. like, love 2. like to use, practice or wear 3. aim at, seek
> 4. use or display ostentatiously 5. assume a false appearance 6. attack
> as a disease 7. move or touch.
>
> effect:  1. bring about (an event or result) 2. produce (a state or
> condition) 3. make, construct or build

Let's take this discussion offlist for my benefit, as I'd like to nut this 
out. I still see it as affect with those definitions.

-- 
-ck