[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416094727.xanzq5t2xjuflcbt@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:47:27 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
john.ogness@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Document that RT task priorities
are 1...99
On 2019-04-16 11:36:34 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 01:13:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Commit-ID: 37a8f8590f307db8f8cfa62dfd82b3fc0978607c
> > Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/37a8f8590f307db8f8cfa62dfd82b3fc0978607c
> > Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> > AuthorDate: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:08:21 +0200
> > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > CommitDate: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:06:08 +0200
> >
> > sched/core: Document that RT task priorities are 1...99
> >
> > John identified three files which claim that RT task priorities start at
> > zero. As far as I understand, 0 is used for DL and has nothing to do
> > wihich RT priorities as identified by the RT policy.
>
> DL is -1, 0 is still very much FIFO/FF
but it can't be set. The lowest we can set is 1. Is this a bug then?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists