Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering

Albert Cahalan
2004-08-05T12:19:25Z

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 02:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> wrote:
>
> > Are these going to be numbered consecutively, or might they better be
> > done like the task state? [...]
>
> this is quite unnecessary at the moment since p->prio < MAX_RT_PRIO is a
> good enough check - but whenever the way p->prio works is changed it
> will be easy to introduce a PF_REALTIME flag that is set/cleared in
> setscheduler(). (instead of playing around with p->policy.)

That was one example. I'm guessing that one might want to
test for other policy groupings, like these:

SCHED_RR | SCHED_ISO
SCHED_BATCH | SCHED_NORMAL
SCHED_SPORADIC | SCHED_NORMAL
SCHED_EDF | SCHED_FIFO

If that's certainly not going to be useful, even in the future,
then of course there's no reason to allocate the values as bits.

In any case, it's a user ABI issue, and I'd like to see what
the allocations are going to be. Perhaps I should send in a
patch that just allocates a few of these...?