On 07/21/20 10:36, peterz(a)infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 06:19:43PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:49:18 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org> wrote:
> > Steve, would this work for you, or would you prefer renaming the
> > parameters as well?
> Yeah, that's fine. You don't have any sched_fifo_high() ?
Thanks! and no.
I'll go write a Changelog and add it to tip/sched/fifo, so that
hopefully, sfr can stop complaining about this build fail ;-)
I've even argued we should rename fifo_low() to something else, but
failed to come up with a sensible name. The intended case is for when
you want something above normal but don't particularly care about RT at
The thing is, once you start adding priorities, even low,med,high, we're
back to where we were. And the whole argument is that the kernel cannot
set priorities in any sensible fashion.
Agreed. I am worried about in-kernel users setting random uclamp values too.
This series should do most of the work but there are more pieces needed on-top.
From what I see we still need to move the sched_setscheduler() from
include/linux/sched.h to kernel/sched/sched.h. And sched_setattr() too. The
latter has a single user in kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c to create a deadline
task. I think that can be easily wrapped with a similar sched_set_dl()
function and exported instead.
Happy to do the work if you nudge me after you've published this fix on tip or