[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200225065409.GK28029@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:24:09 +0530
From: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>
To: Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, qais.yousef@....com,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
valentin.schneider@....com, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
pjt@...gle.com, pavel@....cz, tj@...nel.org,
dhaval.giani@...cle.com, qperret@...gle.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] sched: Allow sched_{get,set}attr to change
latency_nice of the task
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 02:29:17PM +0530, Parth Shah wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 65b6c00d6dac..e1dc536d4ca3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4723,6 +4723,8 @@ static void __setscheduler_params(struct task_struct *p,
> p->rt_priority = attr->sched_priority;
> p->normal_prio = normal_prio(p);
> set_load_weight(p, true);
> +
> + p->latency_nice = attr->sched_latency_nice;
> }
We don't want this when SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE is not set in
attr->flags.
The user may pass SCHED_FLAG_KEEP_PARAMS | SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE to
change only latency nice value. So we have to update latency_nice
outside __setscheduler_params(), I think.
>
> /* Actually do priority change: must hold pi & rq lock. */
> @@ -4880,6 +4882,13 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> return retval;
> }
>
> + if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE) {
> + if (attr->sched_latency_nice > MAX_LATENCY_NICE)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (attr->sched_latency_nice < MIN_LATENCY_NICE)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> if (pi)
> cpuset_read_lock();
>
> @@ -4914,6 +4923,9 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> goto change;
> if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP)
> goto change;
> + if (attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE &&
> + attr->sched_latency_nice != p->latency_nice)
> + goto change;
>
> p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork;
> retval = 0;
> @@ -5162,6 +5174,9 @@ static int sched_copy_attr(struct sched_attr __user *uattr, struct sched_attr *a
> size < SCHED_ATTR_SIZE_VER1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if ((attr->sched_flags & SCHED_FLAG_LATENCY_NICE) &&
> + size < SCHED_ATTR_SIZE_VER2)
> + return -EINVAL;
> /*
> * XXX: Do we want to be lenient like existing syscalls; or do we want
> * to be strict and return an error on out-of-bounds values?
> @@ -5391,6 +5406,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sched_getattr, pid_t, pid, struct sched_attr __user *, uattr,
> else
> kattr.sched_nice = task_nice(p);
>
> + kattr.sched_latency_nice = p->latency_nice;
> +
Can you consider printing latency_nice value in proc_sched_show_task() in this
patch/series?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists