[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <rdEqY1XYnE6kLSvXRjXReSAey0SEwMDUvqQRqLheIM99LpGH8pmv1ngZsNAkW1-DEHQhERga-rxGfTbuhL6FW_aEdo1DvWaOgncii1KmupY=@pm.me>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 19:48:54 +0000
From: Michael Pratt <mcpratt@...me>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched/syscalls: Allow setting niceness using sched_param struct
one more detail I forgot:
it actually would not be compliant for niceness as the input...
On Monday, September 16th, 2024 at 15:23, Michael Pratt <mcpratt@...me> wrote:
> On Monday, September 16th, 2024 at 07:13, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Worse, you're proposing a nice ABI that is entirely different from the
> > normal [-20,19] range.
>
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
> Otherwise, we have a confusing conflation between the meaning of the two values,
> where a value of 19 makes sense for niceness, but is obviously invalid for priority
> for SCHED_NORMAL, and a negative value makes sense for niceness, but is obviously invalid
> for priority in any policy.
>
POSIX doesn't allow a negative value for the ABI at all:
If successful, the sched_get_priority_max() and sched_get_priority_min() functions return
the appropriate maximum or minimum values, respectively.
If unsuccessful, they return a value of -1 and set errno to indicate the error.
--
MCP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists