Re: SCHED_BATCH and SCHED_BATCH numbering
From: Peter Williams
Date: Wed Aug 04 2004 - 21:11:17 EST
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. 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. So I stand by my
comment that Albert's numbering scheme is an excellent idea.
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/