From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932432AbWGEBeF (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:34:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932443AbWGEBeF (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:34:05 -0400 Received: from mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.190]:34693 "EHLO mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932438AbWGEBeD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:34:03 -0400 From: Con Kolivas To: Peter Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:33:42 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel , Ingo Molnar References: <20060704233521.8744.45368.sendpatchset@heathwren.pw.nest> <200607051044.05257.kernel@kolivas.org> <44AB1294.6070600@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <44AB1294.6070600@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607051133.42595.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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