[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9f21c8e5-1103-44fa-82bd-cf608f8a96f6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:05:19 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Metin Kaya <metin.kaya@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()
On 6/5/24 11:32, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-06-04 17:57:46 [+0200], Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> On 6/4/24 16:42, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>> - (wakeup_rt && !dl_task(p) && !rt_task(p)) ||
>>> + (wakeup_rt && !realtime_task(p)) ||
>>
>> I do not like bikeshedding, and no hard feelings...
>>
>> But rt is a shortened version of realtime, and so it is making *it less*
>> clear that we also have DL here.
>
> Can SCHED_DL be considered a real-time scheduling class as in opposite
> to SCHED_BATCH for instance? Due to its requirements it fits for a real
> time scheduling class, right?
> And RT (as in real time) already includes SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO.
It is a real-time scheduler, but the problem is that FIFO and RR are in rt.c and
they are called the "realtime" ones, so they are the first to come in mind.
-- Daniel
>> -- Daniel
>
> Sebastian
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists