linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240610192141.dibvhzrvx7hacvd7@airbuntu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:21:41 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	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 06/05/24 16:07, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 6/5/24 15:24, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >>> 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.
> > Yeah I think the usage of realtime to cover both makes sense. I followed your
> > precedence with task_is_realtime().
> > 
> > Anyway. If people really find this confusing, what would make sense is to split
> > them and ask users to call rt_task() and dl_task() explicitly without this
> > wrapper. I personally like it better with the wrapper. But happy to follow the
> > crowd.
> 
> For me, doing dl_ things it is better to keep them separate, so I can
> easily search for dl_ specific checks.
> 
> rt_or_dl_task(p);

I posted a new version with this suggestion as the top patch so that it can be
shredded more :-)

Thanks for having a look.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef