[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200724174618.7487ee7c@oasis.local.home>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 17:46:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,tracing: Convert to sched_set_fifo()
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 23:39:11 +0200
peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:49:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Steve, would this work for you, or would you prefer renaming the
> > parameters as well?
>
> Steve mentioned he's like to have the parameters changes after all.
> How's this then?
>
> ---
> Subject: sched,tracing: Convert to sched_set_fifo()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:49:18 +0200
>
> One module user of sched_setscheduler() was overlooked and is
> obviously causing build failures.
>
> Convert ring_buffer_benchmark to use sched_set_fifo_low() when fifo==1
> and sched_set_fifo() when fifo==2. This is a bit of an abuse, but it
> makes the thing 'work' again.
>
> Specifically, it enables all combinations that were previously
> possible:
>
> producer higher than consumer
> consumer higher than producer
>
> Fixes: 616d91b68cd5 ("sched: Remove sched_setscheduler*() EXPORTs")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> @@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(write_iteration, "# of
> static int producer_nice = MAX_NICE;
> static int consumer_nice = MAX_NICE;
>
> -static int producer_fifo = -1;
> -static int consumer_fifo = -1;
> +static int producer_fifo = 0;
> +static int consumer_fifo = 0;
The initialization of zero for static variables isn't needed.
>
> module_param(producer_nice, int, 0644);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_nice, "nice prio for producer");
> @@ -55,10 +55,10 @@ module_param(consumer_nice, int, 0644);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_nice, "nice prio for consumer");
>
> module_param(producer_fifo, int, 0644);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_fifo, "fifo prio for producer");
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_fifo, "use fifo for producer: 0 - disabled, 1 - low prio, 2 - fifo");
>
> module_param(consumer_fifo, int, 0644);
> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_fifo, "fifo prio for consumer");
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_fifo, "use fifo for consumer: 0 - disabled, 1 - low prio, 2 - fifo");
>
> static int read_events;
>
> @@ -303,22 +303,22 @@ static void ring_buffer_producer(void)
> trace_printk("ERROR!\n");
>
> if (!disable_reader) {
> - if (consumer_fifo < 0)
> - trace_printk("Running Consumer at nice: %d\n",
> - consumer_nice);
> - else
> + if (consumer_fifo)
> trace_printk("Running Consumer at SCHED_FIFO %d\n",
> consumer_fifo);
Can we change the above to:
trace_printk("Running Consumer at SCHED_FIFO %s\n",
consumer_fifo == 1 ? "low" : "high");
> + else
> + trace_printk("Running Consumer at nice: %d\n",
> + consumer_nice);
> }
> - if (producer_fifo < 0)
> - trace_printk("Running Producer at nice: %d\n",
> - producer_nice);
> - else
> + if (producer_fifo)
> trace_printk("Running Producer at SCHED_FIFO %d\n",
> producer_fifo);
Same here.
> + else
> + trace_printk("Running Producer at nice: %d\n",
> + producer_nice);
>
> /* Let the user know that the test is running at low priority */
> - if (producer_fifo < 0 && consumer_fifo < 0 &&
> + if (!producer_fifo && !consumer_fifo &&
> producer_nice == MAX_NICE && consumer_nice == MAX_NICE)
> trace_printk("WARNING!!! This test is running at lowest priority.\n");
>
> @@ -455,21 +455,19 @@ static int __init ring_buffer_benchmark_
> * Run them as low-prio background tasks by default:
> */
> if (!disable_reader) {
> - if (consumer_fifo >= 0) {
> - struct sched_param param = {
> - .sched_priority = consumer_fifo
> - };
> - sched_setscheduler(consumer, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
> - } else
> + if (consumer_fifo == 2)
Let's make this be:
if (consumer_fifo > 1)
Then if someone sends in 3 it doesn't go low again.
> + sched_set_fifo(consumer);
> + else if (consumer_fifo == 1)
> + sched_set_fifo_low(consumer);
> + else
> set_user_nice(consumer, consumer_nice);
> }
>
> - if (producer_fifo >= 0) {
> - struct sched_param param = {
> - .sched_priority = producer_fifo
> - };
> - sched_setscheduler(producer, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
> - } else
> + if (producer_fifo == 2)
Same here.
-- Steve
> + sched_set_fifo(producer);
> + else if (producer_fifo == 1)
> + sched_set_fifo_low(producer);
> + else
> set_user_nice(producer, producer_nice);
>
> return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists