[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200422132923.GK20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:29:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/23] sched,ion: Convert to sched_set_normal()
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:21:45PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 13:29, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > In an attempt to take away sched_setscheduler() from modules, change
> > this into sched_set_normal(.nice = 19).
> >
> > Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_heap.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_heap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_heap.c
> > @@ -244,8 +244,6 @@ static int ion_heap_deferred_free(void *
> >
> > int ion_heap_init_deferred_free(struct ion_heap *heap)
> > {
> > - struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 0 };
> > -
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&heap->free_list);
> > init_waitqueue_head(&heap->waitqueue);
> > heap->task = kthread_run(ion_heap_deferred_free, heap,
> > @@ -255,7 +253,7 @@ int ion_heap_init_deferred_free(struct i
> > __func__);
> > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(heap->task);
> > }
> > - sched_setscheduler(heap->task, SCHED_IDLE, ¶m);
> > + sched_set_normal(heap->task, 19);
>
> Would it make sense to have a sched_set_idle(task) to enable kernel
> setting SCHED_IDLE task ?
>
> SCHED_NORMAL w/ nice 19 and SCHED_IDLE tasks are not treated in the
> same way when checking for preemption at wakeup
Yeah, but does it really matter? I did indeed consider it, but got
lazy. Is there a definite need for IDLE?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists