[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240605093246.4h0kCR67@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:32:46 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
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 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.
> -- Daniel
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists