From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266695AbUHECYC (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 22:24:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267386AbUHECYC (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 22:24:02 -0400 Received: from smtp106.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.226]:32127 "HELO smtp106.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266695AbUHECX6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2004 22:23:58 -0400 Message-ID: <41119A3B.2020202@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:23:55 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040726 Debian/1.7.1-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Williams CC: Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list , kernel@kolivas.org, Andrew Morton OSDL Subject: Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering References: <1091638227.1232.1750.camel@cube> <41118AAE.7090107@bigpond.net.au> <41118D0C.9090103@yahoo.com.au> <411196EE.9050408@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <411196EE.9050408@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Williams wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Peter Williams wrote: >> >>> Albert Cahalan wrote: >>> >>>> Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might >>>> they better be done like the task state? SCHED_FIFO is >>>> in fact already treated this way in one place. One might >>>> want to test values this way: >>>> >>>> if(foo & (SCHED_ISO|SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) ... >>>> >>>> (leaving aside SCHED_OTHER==0, or just translate >>>> that single value for the ABI) >>>> >>>> I'd like to see these get permenant allocations >>>> soon, even if the code doesn't go into the kernel. >>>> This is because user-space needs to know the values. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Excellent idea. The definition of rt_task() could become: >>> >>> #define rt_task(p) ((p)->policy & (SCHED_RR|SCHED_FIFO)) >>> >>> instead of the highly dodgy: >> > > I probably should have said "slightly" instead of "highly" here but I > got carried away. :-) > >>> >>> #define rt_task(p) ((p)->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO) >>> >> >> Nothing wrong with that, is there? > > > It's sloppy logic in that "prio" being less than MAX_RT_PRIO is a > consequence of the task being real time not the definition of it. At > the moment it is a sufficient condition for identifying a task as real > time but that may not always be the case. Actually, p->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO iff rt_task(p). This can't change without horribly breaking stuff. > But, the real issue is, what's the point of having a field, "policy", > that IS the definitive indicator of the task's scheduling policy if > you don't use it? An rt_task() function/macro defined in terms of the > policy field with this suggested numbering scheme should always be > correct. > > At the moment rt_task(p) could be defined as ((p)->policy != > SCHED_OTHER) but the addition of SCHED_ISO and SCHED_BATCH would break > that. Another option would be (((p)->policy == SCHED_FIFO) || > ((p)->policy == SCHED_RR)) but that's a little long winded and > (avoiding it) is probably the reason for the current definition. Conversely, p->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO neatly defines a task as being realtime without worrying about what exact policy it is using. However if you add or remove scheduling policies, your p->policy method breaks.